role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 2, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WATER QUALITY

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB SECURITY

ASSISTANCE FOR SENIORS AND DISABLED PERSONS

LAYOFFS AT INCO LTD.

CONTRACT WORKERS

FUNDING FOR ADULT LITERACY PROGRAMS

AMATEUR HOCKEY

FUNDING FOR PROVINCIAL PARKS

HOSPITAL BEDS

STUDY BY ONTARIO HYDRO

PETITION

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING COMMITTEES

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WATER QUALITY

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today two initiatives that are important steps in my ministry's efforts to maintain the high quality of drinking water in Ontario. One involves a new public interest component that will play a significant role in dealing with key water quality issues. The second is a significant step forward in our scientific research program.

Since my appointment last July I have been meeting, talking with and listening to people who are active in Ontario's environmental public interest groups. Throughout this dialogue I have been extremely impressed not only by their sincerity and dedication but also by their expertise and capability.

The people I have dealt with from groups such as Pollution Probe, Operation Clean Niagara and the Canadian Environmental Law Association are rendering a valuable service to the people of Ontario in their efforts to protect water quality in the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and elsewhere in the Great Lakes. I believe the Ontario environment will benefit from a closer working relationship between the special interest groups and my ministry. Accordingly, I plan to invite officials of these organizations to nominate representatives to serve with staff of my ministry on a new public interest committee on drinking water quality.

The resources available from public interest groups are as valuable in their own way as the considerable research expertise we obtain from private companies and the academic community. Working together, I believe these groups and ministry staff can do a better job of providing the public with clearly defined and accurate information on Ontario's drinking water quality and water quality protection programs.

The research initiative I mentioned earlier involves the awarding of a $1-million contract over a three-year period to MacLaren Plansearch Inc. to operate the Niagara Falls pilot-scale water treatment plant as a comprehensive facility to test activated carbon filters and other treatment methods. For the duration of the three-year study program, water from this pilot plant will be used for analysis and research.

This contract is being awarded after an intensive review of proposals submitted by six companies. A scientific steering committee of federal, provincial and American environmental and health experts was assembled to review the proposals.

Our aim in the study is to identify the most cost-efficient and effective treatment technology, should it be necessary to enhance the treatment systems now in use throughout Ontario. I emphasize that the methods currently used by my ministry and our municipalities already provide a very high level of protection for the quality of Ontario's drinking water.

This research project has three components: first, the evaluation of conventional treatment in removing contaminants; second, the development of improved analytical techniques for detecting trace organic contaminants; and, third, the evaluation of the activated carbon filtration and other treatment processes in removing these contaminants.

Results from the program will be evaluated by a committee comprising staff from the Ministry of the Environment and the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, as well as a panel of internationally recognized water experts.

I will continue to draw on the best expertise and advice available from all quarters -- from the private sector, from government, from the scientific community and from our public interest groups -- to ensure the highest possible level of protection necessary to maintain the high quality of drinking water in Ontario.

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter I know is of interest and concern to many members of this House. This is the implementation of the Young Offenders Act.

As honourable members know, the Young Offenders Act is the new federal legislation which deals with young persons aged 12 to 17 who commit offences against federal statutes. The new act is intended to hold young persons more accountable for their behaviour, while recognizing they have special needs as persons not fully mature. The act was passed in the House of Commons in July 1982 and is being proclaimed today.

Despite persistent efforts to try to achieve an equitable cost-sharing agreement, Ontario today finds itself with a responsibility to implement and administer the act without such an agreement in place. I might add it is my understanding that only one province has signed a cost-sharing agreement with the federal government. This is the case, despite the fact that since 1976 and earlier we have repeatedly stated that a reasonable level of cost sharing would have to be provided by the federal government if the provinces were to be able to meet the expectations the legislation has created.

In replying to the Premier, Mr. Trudeau said, "I am confident a satisfactory agreement can be reached prior to proclamation, thus facilitating the timely implementation of the Young Offenders Act in a manner consistent with our respective constitutional responsibilities in this area."

The provinces and territories were again unanimous in the view that the federal cost-sharing proposal was substantially inadequate when the matter was discussed at a meeting of federal-provincial ministers in Montreal in late February 1984. It must be recognized that the Young Offenders Act imposes substantial new costs on every province's justice system at a time when we are all facing both severe constraints and many other demands for increased services.

It is estimated, for instance, that under the Young Offenders Act operating costs for this part of the justice system here in Ontario could increase to $163 million a year. Under that proposal the federal contribution would cover only about one third of those costs. The capital cost of providing additional court and custodial facilities is estimated to be about $65 million. The federal cost-sharing offer provides no direct funds for capital costs.

2:10 p.m.

Ontario is most concerned that an inadequate cost-sharing agreement will undermine the very reforms the Young Offenders Act is supposed to produce. We will continue, therefore, to try to reach a more satisfactory funding agreement.

Notwithstanding its concern to ensure adequate sharing of the costs imposed on the province by this legislation, Ontario has long supported the intent and philosophy of the act. We are, therefore, moving immediately to take all necessary steps to comply with the requirements of the act. These actions, of course, must be taken in a series of stages.

Steps have already been taken to deal with those sections of the Young Offenders Act which come into force immediately in Ontario, namely, those pertaining to 12-to-15-year-olds. Other necessary measures will be taken later this year to ensure the effective implementation of the act for 16- and 17-year-olds as of April 1, 1985.

Legislation enacted last December to deal with provincial offences by young persons and to designate the youth courts is proclaimed in force today. Orders in council have been issued to enable designation of provincial directors, youth workers and places of detention and custody, as required by the Young Offenders Act. This will be followed by further legislation, which will be introduced in the House in the next few days. This legislation is largely of a housekeeping nature. For example, it will repeal existing statutes where they are made inoperative by the Young Offenders Act.

This additional legislation will also clarify the authority of the police to apprehend young persons under 12 who are engaged in behaviour which would constitute an offence if the young person were over 12 years of age. It will maintain current practice by providing for the police to return the child under 12 years of age to his or her parents wherever possible. If this cannot be accomplished in a reasonable period of time, it will provide for the police to take the child to a place designated according to the provisions of the Child Welfare Act.

Young offenders in Ontario will continue to be served by the ministries best able to meet their needs at this time. This will mean that, while all young offenders will receive the same services, these services will be delivered by more than one ministry.

As noted earlier, the Young Offenders Act will require Ontario to raise its maximum age, effective April 1, 1985. This will mean that young offenders will range in age from 12 years to 17 years, inclusive. Honourable members will be aware that for several years now the services related to detention and custody of young persons aged 12 to 17 have been delivered by two ministries. The Ministry of Community and Social Services has provided these services to young persons aged 15 years and younger; the Ministry of Correctional Services has been responsible for these services to 16- and 17-year-olds.

It is our intention to continue to build on the strength and experience of both these ministries in implementing the Young Offenders Act. This administrative distribution of responsibility has served young offenders well, and it is not our intention to change it at this time. All necessary measures have been taken to ensure an integrated and consistent approach to the planning and delivery of all services for young offenders.

Honourable members will be pleased to know that staff members of the ministries of Correctional Services, Community and Social Services, the Solicitor General and the Attorney General have been working together for many months now to prepare for the implementation of the Young Offenders Act in this province.

A tremendous amount of work has already been done. In addition to the various measures outlined earlier in this statement, extensive training and orientation have been undertaken for all relevant personnel to ensure their ability to implement not only the letter of the new law but also the spirit of that law.

Having said this, we acknowledge that more needs to be done. Once the act has been in effect for a period of time, we will be in a position to assess our current systems and organizational agreements and to review potential alternatives.

In closing, I think we can all commend the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) for their joint efforts to ensure an integrated and consistent approach to the correctional treatment of young persons under the Young Offenders Act.

Speaking on behalf of these honourable ministers and of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), I can assure members we are prepared to meet the challenges the Young Offenders Act presents and to see it enhance the very fine justice system this province already possesses.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB SECURITY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Page 5 of the throne speech stated: "The upturn of a severe business cycle will alleviate much of the hardship our people have experienced. Nevertheless, without responsible leadership and co-operative action, it cannot assure just and secure growth with decent opportunities for all our citizens."

I refer the Premier to the specific figures on industrial layoffs in this province. To refresh his memory, this year we have had permanent closures of 331 jobs in February, 380 in March and 411 in April, and it was announced in January that a further 434 jobs would be lost some time in the course of this year.

Now that he has been fully informed of the moves of Shell Canada, will the Premier bring this House up to date on what he is doing to provide responsible leadership and co-operative action to protect those jobs in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there has been some communication with Shell. There will be more tomorrow. I am not at liberty to disclose the discussions at this moment.

Mr. Peterson: With respect to the ongoing question of loss of jobs in Ontario, would the Premier bring this House up to date on his discussions with Inco? The company is now suggesting it will cut 490 jobs from Port Colborne. What responsible leadership and co-operative action is he providing to maintain those jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has been dealing directly with this matter of Inco, which does not fall within the category the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. I am sure the Minister of Labour would be delighted to inform the House of all the knowledge he has about it. I suggest the member ask him.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet the senior officials of Inco on this matter on Thursday last week. It is devastating news, but it has been brought about by the worldwide nickel situation and has nothing to do with the circumstances here. On the world market, Inco is producing its product at much higher cost than it is able to sell it for. It is a part of continuing rationalization by Inco in an attempt to get the company back into a profitable situation.

We are having continuing meetings with Inco officials. There will be one tomorrow. We also plan to meet with representatives of the United Steelworkers to make sure everything possible that can be done will be done for the workers dislocated by this severance.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can explain, if he was told on Thursday, why it was that when the president of the local in Port Colborne, Ray Moreau, went into the company, having heard rumours that something was going on, he was told on Thursday that absolutely nothing was in the works? It was not until Friday that the company completely reversed itself and told him about the layoffs. Can the minister explain why the union and the workers involved, the people who are being laid off, have been kept totally in the dark about what was happening?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, there is a logical and reasonable explanation for that. The company wanted the opportunity to speak to labour leaders, management personnel and workers all at one time. It wanted to be able to tell them the facts in an orderly fashion rather than make a premature announcement, which would have led to all sorts of speculation and other problems.

When Inco officials came to see me on Thursday, they asked that the information they gave me be of a confidential nature until they had that opportunity to communicate properly with their workers.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I also want to keep in line with the spirit of the throne speech. My question relates to the economic challenge of long-term employment.

I was rather shocked at the news the other day that 490 persons would be permanently unemployed at the Inco operations in Port Colborne. I had some discussions with the person who gave the release and he based his knowledge on the marketing of nickel.

I thank the minister for sending expert staff into that area, particularly as it relates to the pensions in question and the transfer of employees to other Inco operations in Manitoba and Ontario.

Why are we selling Inco nickel worldwide for American dollars? If we must remain competitive in the world market, why is nickel not sold at the value of the Canadian dollar? Then we can be competitive.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to disagree with the honourable member opposite, but I do not think that is the case at all. From the various briefings I have had on Inco, not only this past week but also over the past two years, it is my understanding that is not the case. I will be happy to get the information for the member. Whether it is in Canadian or US funds, Inco is still not competitive in the world market.

ASSISTANCE FOR SENIORS AND DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. He will be aware that the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) has finally promised to move with respect to the single elderly. Now, a single elderly person receives on the order of $622 a month minimum in Ontario. That still leaves a glaring inequity in the social programs of this province.

I am referring specifically to someone who is on a disability pension under the Family Benefits Act. That single disabled person will receive $382 a month. The provincial secretary will realize no one can live reasonably on that amount. As the provincial secretary responsible, when is he going to move on this glaring inequity?

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will know the record of this government is exemplary in extending social programs from year to year. I refer him to the recent steps taken regarding increases in allowances and pensions to various classes of people. I ask that he give the government an opportunity to bring forth the budget proposals so he will more clearly know our intentions for the future.

Mr. Peterson: The provincial secretary learned how to answer questions from the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch). What is he telling us? Surely he must be aware of the fact that there is a glaring inequity, not only in terms of the amount of money but in terms of the procedures as well.

The provincial secretary is aware that someone qualifies at the age of 18 for a disability pension. If a person applies for the pension prior to the age of 18, they tell him to wait until he is 18. When he applies on his 18th birthday, it sometimes takes up to six months to get that disability pension because of bureaucratic red tape. Indeed, the Hamilton branch of the Ontario March of Dimes, with which the minister will be familiar, reports this often happens in the case of the psychologically disabled. There is no retroactivity in the payments.

Parsimonious as it is, why is the system so slow to respond to those people in need?

Hon. Mr. Dean: To begin with, I thank the member for comparing me with the Deputy Premier, whose skill at answering --

Mr. Peterson: He has never accomplished a thing in his life.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Dean: With respect, I do not think that is a fair or truthful comment on the competence of the Deputy Premier. Although the member's blandishments in flattering me by comparing me to the Deputy Premier are noted, I will not allow them to colour my answer to his question.

I think the member would have to agree that the best way the freedom and the actual exposition of the policies we believe in so well here can best be exemplified is by the quotation of a poem I am sure he is familiar with, which I will spare the member, to the effect that, "Freedom slowly broadens down."

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, that was quite a bizarre answer from the minister.

Mr. Martel: Could he give us another one of those?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, although the provincial secretary is new to his post, surely he understands that the handicapped people of this province are living in poverty, most of them below any poverty line we know. Eighty per cent of those who wish to work are unemployed at this point, and his government has not acted to assist them with the extra costs they have.

How does one deal with the fundamental inequity of the fact that a single older person is going to be old for the rest of his life and a handicapped person is going to be handicapped for the rest of his life, yet there is an enormous discrepancy between what they are supposed to live on as the basic lowest income we expect for each of those groups?

Why is the minister not going to move immediately to make sure they are at least brought to the basic senior citizens' level and perhaps a little higher because of the extra costs that handicapped people have to incur?

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered that question in a general way in response to the previous question. But let me inform the House, and particularly the member for Scarborough West, that the government for some years has had the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped, of which the member is probably aware. This council has been very representative of the disabled people in the province and has given good advice to the province, some of which has been implemented and much of which is under active consideration at this time.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the provincial secretary that we are not talking about a handful of people here; we are talking about more than 68,000 individuals in this province. I want to remind him further that we did not have to wait until the budget to get the kind of action that was long overdue for the single elderly.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. Wrye: When is the minister going to move to equalize the amount of money the provincial government pays out to those who are handicapped? When is he going to move, as my leader has suggested, to make the payments to those who are physically or developmentally handicapped when they reach 18 either immediate or, where his bureaucracy does not have the job done by the time their 18th birthdays arrive, retroactive?

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member undoubtedly knows, the actual day-to-day operation of such programs and policies is not under my secretariat but rather under the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). Our role is that of a policy co-ordinating and policy vetting agency, and I would suggest that perhaps the member might wish to ask this question some time of the other minister.

2:30 p.m.

LAYOFFS AT INCO LTD.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer.

Given the fact that the assets of the Inco pension fund have gone up by 32 per cent in the last two years from $606 million to $800 million, I would like to ask the Treasurer whether he would be prepared to be a little bit innovative in the face of this disastrous announcement for these 500 workers in Port Colborne and encourage the creation of an early retirement plan that would bring together a company that has a pension fund that is well funded and the workers who have been affected by this, which would mean the older workers would be able to take advantage of early retirement, rather than have the impact of this layoff forced solely on younger workers.

Is the Treasurer prepared to be innovative in this case and intervene directly to see that a fair deal takes place for both older and younger workers at Inco in Port Colborne?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, when I was Minister of Industry and Tourism there was an unfortunately large number of instances in which this kind of plant closure occurred. I recall that a number of the major employers did sit down with their employees and their unions and work out a variety of provisions, including some early retirement arrangements which worked out very well.

So long as this sort of thing is occurring, so long as the unions are at the table and able to discuss some of those options with the companies, it would seem to me we do have a circumstance where an equitable arrangement can be worked out without the kind of government intervention that, one way or another in the longer term, causes some dislocation and ultimately some hardship on those who are going to be caught by that sort of arrangement when perhaps they do not want to be. I believe the best circumstance for the present time is the kind of arrangement we currently have.

If the leader of the third party would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) with regard to what is happening with Inco, I would hope and expect that some arrangements might be worked out in this sort of circumstance with Inco and its workers.

Mr. Rae: I take that answer to mean the Treasurer is not prepared to do anything.

The average age of the workers at the plant in Port Colborne is 53. There is a pension fund that is filled to overflowing with a substantial surplus. Surely it is the task of the Ontario government to intervene, to guarantee that workers over 55 will retire without any penalty --

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: -- and receive the same benefit they would receive at 65 and not suffer a financial penalty to allow younger workers to stay on.

I repeat the question to the Treasurer. Is he prepared to intervene on behalf of the younger and the older workers at Inco to see that the older workers do not suffer and to see that the younger workers do not bear the full brunt of the layoff proposal that is now on the table from the company?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Once again, as I outlined a moment ago, in the Inco situation we have seen a circumstance where the parties have got together and an early retirement has been worked out.

My colleague the Minister of Labour has given me the precise information. They have reached an agreement whereby early retirement will be offered and available to those who have 30 years of service regardless of age, and 20 years of service at, incidentally, age 55, the very age the honourable member is talking about. So those kinds of arrangements are being worked out.

Again, I repeat, if we begin to have government intervene with legislation of the kind the member is suggesting, if we begin to have government take over those decisions, we remove the options to unions, employees and employers to work out those arrangements which work in the long-term benefit of the employees and the companies. That seems to me to be the right way to go, and it is working, as he can see in the Inco situation.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the questions the leader of the third party has raised. I think the point he is trying to convey to the minister is that in the 1977 layoff of Inco -- and at that time there were a large number involved in Port Colborne and in the Sudbury area -- the company did come forward with some incentives to encourage those with more seniority to take their early retirement. But there were a number of them who did not meet the criteria, in particular that factor of age 55. Some of them may have had 28 years of employment in that industry but, because of their age, they did not satisfy the age factor of 55.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Haggerty: Many of those persons are not employed today because of that grey line. All we are suggesting is that there should be some incentive in this area from the industry to let those persons enjoy that pension now, instead of locking it into the age of 65. Does the Treasurer agree with this?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, might I say that the honourable member has outlined particularly the problems involved with drawing any sort of line. If he will contemplate for a moment the proposal that has been put before me, it is simply to draw a new line. There would still be people caught under the kind of arbitrary line that has been proposed to us be drawn.

What the member has raised emphasizes very well the importance of having arrangements that are flexible so the company and its employees can work out a scheme that looks at the number of people, who they are, what their job profiles are, what their backgrounds are, what their ages are, and sees how they can shape a plan to provide early retirement for the particular work force, as opposed to saying: "Do not look to us. The province just put in a new rule and that is all we have to do."

The current circumstance seems to be working to the benefit of those involved. Mr. Speaker, you might want to redirect that question to the Minister of Labour who could provide the specific details with regard to the Inco situation in the member's own riding.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, Inco officials have indicated that those workers who are not affected by the termination but who would be interested in retiring and meet the criteria the Treasurer has outlined, such as 30 years of service or 20 years of service and age 55, would be given an extra incentive of 26 weeks of severance pay, which in most cases would amount to approximately $13,000, which they could have in one lump sum or draw out over various payments. That is an extra incentive the company has brought forward.

Mr. Rae: I want to go back to the Treasurer. Given the information that has now been put on the floor of the House by the Minister of Labour, it still amounts to a very substantial loss in comparison to what a worker would have received at 65. The point is that all the early retirement schemes being put forward by companies in these circumstances amount to less than the workers would have received if they had been able to work until they were 65. They are still being asked by the companies to take a loss at a time when pension funds are going up and up because of the high interest rates being paid by borrowers.

Will the Treasurer please intervene on behalf of workers who have no bargaining power in these circumstances, who have no leverage when the company has said: "This is the number that is going. You figure out who is going to go"? Will he intervene to see that we have a province-wide early retirement scheme that guarantees fairness between the generations in this province in terms of the layoffs that are taking place in industry today?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As the Minister of Labour has just pointed out, if the government had put in the scheme the member is recommending, the following things would have happened. First, sooner or later there would have been an increase in overall costs out of the system which would have encouraged companies that are now having a tough time competing to reduce the size of their potential liability, reduce the work force and therefore have more people never employed.

The second consequence of what the member is suggesting is that some of the workers involved would not have ended up with the special incentive the Minister of Labour has referred to. They would have ended up with the member's proposal and not the extra money, and therefore would have been less well off had there been intervention through a government mechanism, strapping every firm and every employee into these kinds of rules. They would have walked away without the benefit of having been able to strike the arrangements with the company that fitted their own firm better.

When one gets right down to the bottom line, surely it is the good sense of having the parties to each of these unfortunate circumstances sit down and work it out.

Mr. Rae: What choice did the parties have? What choice do the workers have?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, had the company simply relied upon the absence of choice of the workers, none of these extra arrangements would have been worked out. It indicates the common sense of the current arrangement.

2:40 p.m.

CONTRACT WORKERS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my next question is to the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. It concerns an issue I have raised on a number of occasions and addressed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton). I have had no satisfaction from them.

I would like to try asking this minister to take an interest in this problem, because it very much affects the women of this province. I am referring to the epidemic of contracting out in the health care field, and particularly in the nursing home field.

The minister will be aware that both Villa Columbo and the Heritage Nursing Home this past week have announced that they are going to be gutting their bargaining units, firing workers, more than 90 per cent of whom are women who are making between $7.50 and $8.50 an hour depending on their job, and replacing them with contracted out employees who are going to be making far less than that, somewhere between $4 and $5.

What is the Minister responsible for Women's Issues going to do in defence of working women in this province who are making between $7.50 and $8.50 an hour who have families to raise, children to feed, and mortgages or rents to pay? What is he going to do for those workers to protect their employment when private sector employers and some public sector employers are just waving their wands and saying, "Goodbye, so long, we do not need you any more"? What is he going to do to protect them?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding it has been pointed out to the honourable member in response to this type of question in the past that there are a number of cases covering this issue currently before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It would seem wise to await the outcome of the consideration of that board before making any rash responses to a question like this.

Mr. Rae: Ballycliffe Lodge, Kennedy Lodge Nursing Home, Brantwood Manor, Thompson House, the Toronto East General and Orthopaedic Hospital and the Wellesley Hospital have now been joined by Villa Columbo and Heritage Nursing Home. Heritage Nursing Home and Villa Columbo were not deterred from firing their workers because of the actions before the labour board.

What is the minister going to do to protect women workers who are making $8 an hour and who need that money to be able to raise their families? What is he going to do in defence of those women?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I cannot add anything to the answer to the original question.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister understands his role as the Minister responsible for Women's Issues should be broad enough that he would be able to sit down with his colleagues and urge upon them initiatives to overcome various difficulties that occur in ministries for which they have line responsibilities.

Surely in this case, where it appears there is a pattern of contracting out in which the people affected are almost exclusively women, he should be willing to sit down with his colleagues and discuss some initiatives other than those which the Ontario Labour Relations Board may or may not take in the fullness of time. Surely the women of this province deserve something better than the kind of uncertainty so many of them are going through now.

Is he prepared to sit down with his colleague the Minister of Labour, with whom he is now chatting, and have a little more formal chat about the kinds of initiatives this government might take to stop this kind of action?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one or two points should be made in response to the supplementary.

One, this does not impact only on women. We are also talking about men who work at minimum wage or a little more. We are thinking in terms of everybody, I am sure. The percentages are a matter of fact and could be established, but I think we should understand we take that into account.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You are doing nothing in terms of anybody.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am responding to the question. We know we have line ministers who are charged with these responsibilities. If the member wants to ask the question here, fine, I will respond as best I can.

Two, I would point out that a number of these matters are before the board and I would think that would be the place for their resolution.

Three, regardless of the facts, I would think these matters could be ascertained and that in future negotiations the whole question of contracting out might well be a subject for negotiations at those times as well.

Mr. Rae: The minister is a fine one to talk about negotiations. His government stopped the workers from being able to negotiate. It took away the right to negotiate and that is why the workers have no bargaining power. The government is responsible for what happened. The government put them up to it.

I would like to point out to the minister that each one of these organizations that has fired workers and is trying to replace them with workers at a minimum wage level, each one of these employers is in receipt of vast sums of public moneys on a regular basis. It is the taxpayer who is funding these organizations, whether it is a hospital, a nursing home or a charitable home for the aged.

As the minister who is supposed to be responsible for seeing that the women of this province get a fair deal, and since it was his government that took away the right to negotiate and affected the bargaining power of these women and thousands of other workers in the public sector, what is he planning to do on behalf of these women to see that they can keep their jobs at a decent wage and not have to give way to people who are having to work for $4 or $4.50 an hour? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The leader of the third party has simply repeated his main question, to which he has had an answer.

FUNDING FOR ADULT LITERACY PROGRAMS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. The minister will know, since I sent her a memo on it last Thursday, the Prescott and Russell County Board of Education has developed a new educational policy -- is the minister listening? -- regarding alternative education funding.

As of January 31, 1984, there were 2,000 students enrolled in alternative education in Prescott-Russell. That is roughly 20 times the number in major cities such as Ottawa. I remind the minister of the functional illiteracy rate we have and other problems in my constituency.

Can she tell us why, through memo B-9, she has effectively cancelled such programs, reducing the grants by some $680,000 for half of one year alone? This will result in the firing of at least 15 teachers who teach those programs in a community such as Prescott-Russell, which so desperately needs that help.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has a peculiar definition of "memorandum." What he sent me was an open letter, which I gather he had already sent to the press before he sent it to me.

The ministry funding memorandum is a very straightforward memorandum which ensures there will be funding for adult basic literacy programs within the school system on the same basis as any other program, that is, without the charging of an additional fee. It does require of boards, however, that they have a reasonable arrangement related to the provision of the educational program, a little more than simply telephoning a teacher who may or may not be within a school on an irregular basis to assist that student in the completion of the program.

Discussions are going on at present with various boards about the ways in which greater flexibility could be built into that adult basic literacy program to ensure that it meets the needs of all the students who require the additional assistance the program can give to them.

Mr. Boudria: You cancelled it because it worked.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We did not cancel it.

Mr. Boudria: Yes, you did.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, we did not.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the minister has in place in Prescott-Russell an extremely popular and successful program for meeting the objectives she says she has in the throne speech. Why does she want to cut off funds to the degree she has for this highly successful program, which deals with the problem of providing new skills for people in our province in a much more aggressive and meaningful way than she or her ministry has done?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is not entirely correct in suggesting the objectives are not going to be funded. They have very specifically been funded through the new arrangements for funding for adult basic literacy and for upgrading, which we have taken as seriously as any jurisdiction in North America.

I do believe there are ways in which greater flexibility can be built into the provision of those programs through the public school system, which is precisely what we are trying to do. Greater flexibility does not mean licence to utilize taxpayers' money in ways that may not achieve the goals of the program as they are delineated within the Education Act and the other documents provided.

2:50 p.m.

AMATEUR HOCKEY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Is the minister aware of a study by Dr. Charles H. Tator of the department of neurosurgery at Sunnybrook which indicates that from 1976 to 1983 there have been 42 spinal injuries -- median age 17, average age 20 -- and that Ontario has 26 of these injuries, more than the rest of Canada and the United States combined?

There are 34 injuries which occurred in organized games; 17 players had total paralysis below the level of injury and five more have lost the power of ambulation. Consequently, in a seven-year period, 22 of 42 players will be confined to wheelchairs for the rest of their lives.

Can the minister say what the government is prepared to do to reduce these serious accidents? Of 15 boys who were injured, 11 were pushed from behind when they could not defend themselves.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of Dr. Tator's study at Sunnybrook Medical Centre because we financed it. As the honourable member knows, we have also provided considerable financing to do research in sports medicine, particularly in relation to hockey. We have done this for the last three or four years, ever since we organized with the member's help the Hockey Ontario Development Committee. We are not going to discontinue our efforts in this. We will continue to help and support hockey and the sports medicine people to try to get to the bottom of what I, and I think all of us in this House, regard as a very disconcerting situation.

As the member knows and as he has said, because I listened to the conclusions reached by him on Let's Discuss It, his conclusions are very similar to those over here. It is not a sensible thing for the government simply to rush in and try to legislate or try to police the game to try to make it safer.

As the member has suggested, and I would agree, it is a matter of doing some basic research and it is a matter of attitudinal change. In the last three or four years, we have substantially stepped up our financing in the hockey world to carry on these exercises, but to say and conclude -- which obviously neither Dr. Tator nor Mr. Firth or any of the others who are doing research in this field have concluded -- that it is a result of goonery in hockey, or because of body contact below a certain age group, or because of charging behind or whatever, would be dangerous and premature. The experts tell us we first have to get to the bottom of it.

As the member also knows, and as was indicated in Dr. Tator's report, a study was done by the University of Waterloo to take a good, systematic, scientific look at the possibility some youngsters who wear protective helmets are more vulnerable to back injuries than if they have no protective equipment at all, because the equipment might be too heavy. Apparently the study has proved that is not the case.

This is perhaps too detailed a response, but we are aware of the problem, we are standing behind the research people and the sports medicine people, we are helping to finance their studies, and when the time comes and the evidence is there we are also prepared to act along with them. They themselves have done this. They have made tentative recommendations to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association.

Mr. Martel: I am pleased to hear the minister's answer because that is exactly what Dr. Tator is suggesting.

Is the minister aware that Dr. Tator in his report makes the following recommendations: "Enforcement of the current rules. Introduction of a new rule, particularly to protect one from being hit from the blind side or from the rear"?

I told the minister last week, as well as three years ago and four years ago, we know that hitting from the rear causes a lot of accidents and there is no protection, and we know there is a lot of intimidation in the use of the stick. This study recommends stricter enforcement of the existing rules. Whether I like the government to be involved or not, the statistics are mounting. I understand there is a further report that says those statistics might be somewhat higher since last year.

What is the minister prepared to do now to ensure the rules are applied uniformly across this province? What is he prepared to do to insist there will be a rule in force by next fall to prevent an attack from the rear, against which there is no defence by anyone?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The member knows full well if we wanted to enforce such a rule, as he has said, we would probably have to do it through legislation. I am not prepared to stand up here at this time and say that will happen.

I think the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association is now more fully aware of some of the difficulties and the reasons these injuries take place. It will be incumbent upon that organization to lower the boom, as it were, on its officials and its leagues throughout this country, to enforce some of these rules. We will do what we can here to help CAHA do exactly that.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that it would indeed be a mistake for the government of Ontario to dictate specific policy on minor hockey, nevertheless, the figures that have been produced cause a lot of concern. Those of us who see a lot of minor hockey games are well aware of the violence that takes place.

With this in mind, would the minister be prepared to convene a conference of hockey officials -- I am talking about the management, the league conveners themselves, the heads of associations, coaches and even players -- to get together with officials of the ministry to discuss the problem and come forward with recommendations during the summer, because the season is almost at an end, that could be implemented in the fall under the auspices of the various associations that deal with minor hockey? Is the minister prepared to convene such a conference?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, that process has already been started. Certainly we will be working with the CAHA and we will be working with organized hockey in this province, the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League, the Ontario Minor Hockey Association, all of them, to try to alter some of the rules and also to have some of the existing rules more strictly enforced.

To go back to the question of attitudinal change, we have to work our way to that. It does not happen overnight. It will certainly take some time for this to happen. As the member knows, some of the members at the head of the leagues may not be totally convinced immediate overnight action is necessary. We have to change those attitudes. This matter has been of serious concern to us for some time. I really do believe we are making strides, aided by some very good sports medicine research.

FUNDING FOR PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. My question concerns natural resources, but I note that minister is not in the House. It should also be of great importance to tourism in this province. It involves the provincial government's funding constraints on provincial parks and how this is affecting tourism in the area.

Is the minister aware the cutbacks in funding for a provincial park such as Turkey Point on the north shore of Lake Erie have so limited the maintenance and improvement of the park that the land is seriously eroding and the two-mile beach nearby, a major tourist attraction for the area, is losing 3.3 feet per year as a result?

With the pride we all share in our province in our bicentennial year, what steps will the minister take, in co-operation with his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), to improve the general area and, in particular, remedy the very serious lack of adequate washroom and other facilities in this park? These things make the difference between having an attractive area for our tourists and not. What action does the minister plan to take?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member has indicated, this is a matter for my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources. Expenditures on provincial parks are his responsibility.

3 p.m.

Obviously, as Minister of Tourism and Recreation, I have a very strong interest in seeing to it our provincial parks continue to be very attractive to tourists. I should, however, also say -- and I think the member would agree with this -- Ontario is fortunate in having probably the largest and the finest inventory of provincial or state parks anywhere in the world. I am sure the Minister of Natural Resources will also want us to help maintain this goal. We will continue to maintain these parks at a very high standard. I will be talking to him to make sure that many tourists will be able to enjoy our wonderful inventory of parks.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that Turkey Point has accommodated some 300,000 visitors per year and that the area has one of the largest marinas on Lake Erie's north shore in addition to a fine beach but that it is in danger of losing the millions of dollars of tourist revenue the area has received as the beach erodes more and more each year?

The Turkey Point Property Owners Association reported to the rural municipalities' task force in Simcoe last week that the change houses and comfort stations are filthy and are falling apart, with holes in the floors, etc. Visitors to the beach just cannot use them and must go to local business outlets to use these facilities. This group pointed out that there is certainly a lack of funding from the ministry.

As tourism plays a tremendous role in the overall economy of Ontario, does the minister not feel that more funding should be made available, particularly in this bicentennial year when we are trying to celebrate Ontario's birthday? I noticed that the Premier (Mr. Davis) opened the celebration this past weekend with a fine program from New York city.

The Deputy Speaker: May we have the question?

Mr. G. I. Miller: Can we not put some of that money to work in Ontario in order to upgrade our facilities?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I am, of course, totally aware and pleased that the honourable member opposite is fully aware of the tremendous tourist attraction Turkey Point has become. As I indicated in my earlier reply, I will be prepared to take it up with my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources to see what financial plans he has in mind for the Turkey Point park. I am sure they will be adequate so we can continue to maintain the very high and wonderful standards of that facility.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if there have been any discussions in cabinet about transferring the responsibility for the maintenance and operation of our provincial parks system from the Ministry of Natural Resources to his ministry so it can complement what is so important all over the province by way of tourism. Given the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources for all the other resources, does he not think the parks system gets lost in the overall scheme of things?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I think this honourable member above all knows it would be stretching the truth to call that a supplementary.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Oh, no.

Mr. Stokes: About the management of our parks?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, sir. These were specific parks.

Mr. Stokes: I do not need any lectures from you.

The Deputy Speaker: But if the minister would like to respond, please do so.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Without divulging cabinet secrets, I can only say we are constantly looking at who administers what and we are always looking at this. It is the subject of ongoing consideration and evaluation.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. He will be aware of the study that was conducted by the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council on bed utilization.

We in this party contacted many of the hospitals in the Toronto area to find out what their specific situations were. For example, at Wellesley Hospital we found that 40 to 50 people are waiting for chronic care; at Toronto Western Hospital 105 are waiting for long-term care; at Scarborough Centenary Hospital 30 to 35 per cent of the beds have inappropriately placed patients; at Queensway General Hospital, 87; and at Sunnybrook Medical Centre, 95. We also found that the waiting list for elective surgery to get into hospital is extremely long in this particular area, as it is across the province.

Are these symptoms of a health care system that is supposed to be working so smoothly, or are they not symptoms of a health care system that is falling apart partly because of underfunding and bad planning on the part of the Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the honourable member were to plumb the depths of his own integrity he would realize the questions he asked reflect a partisan comment on the system as opposed to a careful examination of the facts relating to the quality of health care in this province.

I am aware of the report to which he has referred; it is currently under review within the ministry. I am also aware that there are people in acute care facilities awaiting longer-term care beds. But the member also should be aware that very recently there have been some bed awards within the Metropolitan Toronto area, which will help to relieve some of that pressure.

They are not yet on stream and they are not yet constructed, but they will be; the approvals have certainly been given. In the course of allocating beds in this next year, presumably the document that has been forwarded to me by the district health council by way of advice will be carefully considered in establishing the allocation of those beds.

Waiting lists for elective procedures are a fact everywhere in the world. The situation in Ontario is probably better than that in 99.9 per cent of the other jurisdictions in the world.

Mr. Cooke: The fact of the matter is that, in addition to waiting for elective surgery, people of this province have to spend a great deal of their time when they need assistance in emergency rooms, hallways or special rooms that are now set up to hold patients because there are not enough beds in this province and there are a lot of people inappropriately placed.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cooke: For example, at Humber Memorial Hospital it is not unusual to have 12 people waiting in the emergency room.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not statement time; it is question period.

Mr. Cooke: For example, at Sunnybrook one can wait four days to get into an acute care bed while waiting in emergency. There are some people in the hospitals in Toronto, one in particular, who have waited up to two years to get a long-term bed.

When is this province going to put in place a strategy that uses institutional care for those people who absolutely need it; and when are we going to get a comprehensive program of alternatives in the communities that include day care, day hospitals and care for the frail elderly while they are at home? When is the government going to put those alternatives in place, or does the minister plan on continuing to emphasize institutional care in this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: How could anyone make a statement such as this gentleman just did in talking about emphasizing institutional care when we have just completed putting chronic and acute home care services in place across the province? These are now available in every jurisdiction except Metropolitan Toronto, although we are now in the first phase of introducing chronic home care here, which will be completed by September of this year.

Look across the province at the number of day hospitals that are now in operation. If the member shakes his head no, I will take him and show him some of them. They do exist -- not in every community, but the system is growing and developing.

It is not going to happen overnight, but the member should not sit there and suggest we are continuing to emphasize only institutional care when in this province we are spending almost $1 billion of our own money, at least exclusively provincial money, to put in place such community-based services as exist and to expand them without any assistance whatsoever from the federal government.

It is the initiative of this government that has made our health care system one of the leading systems in the whole world. Do not sit there and make those kinds of allegations.

3:10 p.m.

STUDY BY ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. McLean: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. In the region of Orillia, Bracebridge, Huntsville, Parry Sound and Burk's Falls there is a proposal for a restructuring of Ontario Hydro facilities, which would relocate 54 employees from Orillia either to Bracebridge or Barrie, thereby taking away $2.5 million per year from the Orillia economy. Can the minister assure me this is only a study and that it will not necessarily become a fact?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, there are those cynics in this House who might suggest the member gave me notice of that question. I would not want to mislead the members but to assure them instead that he did. I will give him a very succinct answer as I am accustomed to doing.

I can assure the member that at the present time the study is only that. It is part of Ontario Hydro's assessment of its service areas. It is an ongoing assessment in an attempt to address some very severe constraints which are being placed on the operations

section of Ontario Hydro by its board. They are indeed watching the bucks. I assure the member that, in addressing this issue, Hydro is looking at the Orillia area as well as other areas of the province. At the present time it is a study which is soliciting input from the municipal councils in the area in order that a fair and realistic assessment can be made of this situation.

Mr. McLean: Can the minister assure me that this study in its present proposed form will not take place?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I am not aware of the precise detail of the study in its present form. Therefore, I cannot give that kind of assurance. The member knows full well that these kinds of decisions will be made by the board of directors of Ontario Hydro in the fullness of time, bearing in mind the input of the municipalities and individuals and representations made by the people such as this member.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not really trying to save bucks at the expense of the rural communities of this province? Why is he taking these services away from rural people who will have farther to travel? Why does he not save his dollars on Darlington and other areas? It is a disadvantage for the rural people of this province; they will have to travel more miles and have less service in order that the government may save itself some dollars. Why does he not look after the rural people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the honourable member that these decisions rest with the board of Ontario Hydro. One year ago -- maybe more -- a decision was taken to amalgamate certain areas in southwestern Ontario, which necessitated the closing of the office in Hamilton. That is not a rural area. These restructurings are necessary and are under continual discussion. They will not mean any withdrawal or reduction of services, only a saving of dollars.

PETITION

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by 78 petitioners from Metropolitan Toronto, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This petition bears 41 signatures from the great county of Haliburton.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Windsor identical to the two that were just presented and I endorse the petition. It reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 22,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Reform Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: This bill is intended to clarify that municipal corporations are not entitled to make contributions under the act.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill 23,

An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: This bill would provide for repeal of the unproclaimed provisions of the Condominium Act that relate to the condominium bureau and provide instead for a registrar of condominiums, who would give advisory services to the public, maintain a registrar of mailing addresses of condominiums and issue licences to condominium managers.

Condominium management would be restricted to licensees, except in the case of managers of single condominiums having no more than 100 units. The Lieutenant Governor in Council would be empowered to make regulations requiring the posting of bonds. The Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario may, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, set standards for the managers.

The bill also provides for a consensual procedure for the review and resolution of disputes within a condominium.

3:20 p.m.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill 24,

An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill would authorize condominium corporations to make bylaws providing for the collection of special levies from owners of residential units occupied by tenants.

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 25,

An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill restricts the use on land of leghold traps. It also provides for a trap exchange program and makes a number of changes which would make trapping more humane. It has been publicly endorsed by the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, every major humane society in Canada and numerous other groups concerned about humane issues.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Mr. Treleaven, resolution 2.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Mr. Treleaven, resolution 3.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I would like to move now a motion that sets up the committees but does not appear printed on the order paper.

Agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the membership on the standing committees for the fourth session be as follows:

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up where I left off on Friday. Before I recount what is continuing to happen, not only in Hamilton but also across the province, I think it would be useful to recapitulate the figures from the Consolidated-Bathurst plant with which I ended.

I remind the members of the figures I left with. Out of the 207 workers at the Consolidated-Bathurst plant who were let go as a result of the corporate rationalization, now, getting close to a year later, only 83 of them have found employment, 81 full-time and two part-time. As I said, 90 per cent of those are working for less money than when they were employed at Consolidated-Bathurst. One hundred and six of them are still unemployed.

Only 28 workers are on upgrading or retraining programs, and most of them are older workers. I can tell members it is tough. I did not talk to one who was very happy about it or who felt it was of much use to them in their situation.

So far, only three are on welfare, but in the third week in April most of the rest of them run out of the unemployment insurance benefits and most of them then, if they have not already used it, will have to rely on spending the money they had saved for pensions because of the fact the pensions were not the best in the world in that plant. Before they will qualify for welfare, they will have to use up the savings they had saved in their 20 to 30 years in that plant and had intended to use for their retirement.

This is the kind of situation we have and we have got some people who are pretty despondent. Consolidated-Bathurst only mirrors what is happening in plant after plant.

I hope to have the figures for this House shortly on what has happened to almost 700 workers at International Harvester Canada Ltd. They are gathering that information in the local union now, but I can tell the House the same pattern and the same story are emerging about people who have not been able to find jobs, who have a long service with the company and who do not expect ever to be back.

Once again, I ask the members on the other side of the House: what has this government done to deal with this problem? What is in the throne speech? Absolutely nothing.

I made reference to the sizeable growth in the number of employables who are going on to the welfare case loads across Ontario. In my own town, the numbers of employable people on the welfare rolls have been as follows: 2,064 in August 1981, 5,353 in January 1984 and 5,388 in February 1984. Another group will jump on within the next month from the Consolidated-Bathurst plant. They are coming on almost daily from the International Harvester plant in our town.

Allen Industries Canada had a brief respite, but some 200 workers there, most of whom have long-term service, will be added to that list a short way down the road. I hate to predict, but I am afraid we are going to see an increase in the general welfare case load and an increase in the employables on that list. This is a category of people who just have not been on general welfare in our communities before. Once again, what do we see being done about it?

The weekend paper in my town had at least three more incidences, at least one of which has been raised in this House. The smaller ones include a couple of restaurants, one of which is Malarky's. There were 50 employees who were given very sudden notice that they were terminated. The workers are very angry about it. I will not go into the details, but just over the weekend, another 50 were terminated.

We have the Port Colborne situation where 490 workers got the axe permanently. The comment my leader made in the question period today is very interesting. He pointed out that the president of the local, Mr. Moreau, went in and asked the management of the company: "There are rumours around the plant that there may be fairly heavy layoffs. Is there any truth to them?" The answer he was given, of course, was, "No, there will be nothing more than the usual summer layoffs." The next day we learned from the paper that 490 Inco employees were permanently out.

3:30 p.m.

In Fort Erie, Hart and Cooley just last week notified the 38 remaining workers in that plant that they were finished. As I think I mentioned on Friday, the piece in the paper says, "Fifteen qualified workers may be offered a transfer to one of the other Hart and Cooley plants, but it will be based on" -- and they made it very clear -- "their work record and their expertise."

Members know what that means. If those workers happen to have had a Workers' Compensation Board case or any kind of mark against them during their previous years of employment with that company, they will not be transferred. I do not know how long this is going to continue going on in Ontario, but it is something that certainly should be worrying this government and something this government should be taking a look at. I find it impossible to understand why there is absolutely nothing in the throne speech to deal with this problem.

Apart from the continuing saga of layoffs, we have the growing experience in this province of part-time workers. I do not know when we are going to come to grips with the situation when a worker loses his job. In many cases he has had a great deal of service and he has had some reason up until now to believe that was his security and how he was going to feed his family and keep the kids going to school for the next period of time. He suddenly finds himself out of work.

The interesting phenomenon going around the province is that we are picking up twice as many part-time jobs as we are new jobs. Workers who have lost full-time jobs are getting part-time jobs. Where are the benefits? What is going to happen? How are these people going to continue to pay mortgages and bills? Is this the kind of future employment picture the Conservative government in Ontario is looking at? I do not hear it being discussed. I do not see anything in the throne speech about the changing patterns of employment, but that certainly is what is happening out there in the community.

In the throne speech the government announced its intention to improve benefits for certain government employees. "To provide wider access to improved rights and benefits, the civil service will include employees who work on a regular part-time basis." We are talking about some of the benefits now.

It does not matter how many times one recycles such a promise. When the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program was announced in 1981 in this House, the government said, "The province intends to discuss with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union a number of staffing initiatives which will create the flexibility to accommodate changing employee needs. Among the ideas being explored are the inclusion of unclassified employees into permanent part-time positions and the conversion of full-time positions into part-time positions."

The backgrounder to the throne speech goes on to say there may be some 7,000 part-time workers involved. As we have seen, even the ministry has had to do a little bit of dancing on that one, and the actual figure is about 3,000. We are dealing with about one in four of the unclassified employees in the provincial civil service. There is nothing I have heard said or have seen in the throne speech that says we are going to start dealing with the kind of benefits or wage levels that are there in terms of the part-time employees in the private sector.

The part-time employee growth in the private sector is substantial and significant. The statistics for last January show that of 712,000 part-time workers, 503,000 or 71 per cent are women and 209,000 are men. I mentioned the growth earlier in part-time employees. In one month part-time employment increased by 16,000. A figure I think is scary and staggering in Ontario now is that 17 per cent of all jobs in Ontario are now part-time jobs. That figure has been increasing yearly in this province.

Once again, what kind of protection is there for these workers? What does it mean in terms of their ability to purchase and keep their homes going, keep their families in school and keep paying the bills? What is there in the throne speech to deal with this problem and this group of people? We do not see anything.

I said on Friday that the demand of many companies in negotiations today for a dual wage scale in the plants is one of the most dangerous developments we have seen in Ontario in terms of undermining workers' wages and the rights of workers to the same pay for the same job. We are seeing the same thing happen now in contracting out.

The attack has been led in the nursing home field. There is not a week here that we do not see another nursing home contracting out. We had two more cases raised in this House today where the wages of workers, anywhere from 30 to 40 to as many as more than 100 in some cases, have been cut back. Their wages are not high. The highest I have seen yet in any that have contracted out is close to the $10 range. Most of them make from $7 to $8.50 in wages.

The workers are notified at the minimum requirement and are told they are finished. Then they contract out to an outfit for somewhere between $4 and $6. And, let me tell the members, $6 is high in the ones we have talked to. In most cases, it is in the $4.50 to $5 range. If people are desperate, some of them may be coming back at that lower rate because there is no job for them out there in the community. But an awful lot are not going to be anywhere near as well qualified.

The classes, the training and retraining programs that many of these health care workers have taken in an effort to upgrade their skills and give us quality care in nursing homes and extended care facilities are really wasted; they are thrown away. It is either that or we have really insulted them by putting them through the courses. How many of them are going to use their skills at $4.50, $4.75 or $5 an hour?

What we are doing to workers in this province is a crime. Once again, I see absolutely nothing in terms of any action by this government. As a matter of fact, if there is an indictment of the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch), it is his lack of action and his callousness -- I do not care how good a front he puts on, that is all one can call it -- in response to the questions that are asked about this situation which almost entirely involves female employees.

In the throne speech there was a lot of rhetoric about better communications and less confrontation. What is going on today in Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union and the desperate effort to protect the jobs of Gray Coach drivers? A lot of the work has been contracted out to GO Transit to serve the various towns and communities around this part of the province.

GO Transit decided it was going to hire its own drivers in spite of years and years of a background of working and contracting with the Gray Coach service and its drivers. The union tried to meet with management. It appealed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) for some assistance. What happened?

I was talking to Mr. Johnston today, and he said that GO Transit management has refused to meet with the union on the grounds that it would be contrary to the Ontario Labour Relations Act since GO Transit has contracts with another union. I do not hear the other union complaining. It is absolutely ridiculous to use that kind of argument. When the government is going to do something that could mean the jobs of a good number of workers, the least it owes them is to sit down with them and their unions and discuss what is happening, how many can be used or whether all of them can be used.

We understand, although this may be a point of argument, there is probably going to be very little difference in the costs that are involved.

Why do we take the attitude that the government has the right to do this, that it does not need to talk to those workers? They are only going to lose their jobs and a good many years of service with Gray Coach. Is that what we mean when we talk about less confrontation and more discussion with workers and their organizations in Ontario? If so, it is a pretty sad state of affairs.

The government talks, but in every action we have going on, right up until today, whether it is in closures or in contracting-out situations like this, there is absolutely nothing being done by this government and no response to legitimate questions being raised, such as the safety and health questions and some of the other questions I raised on Friday. Nothing is happening.

Where is this new co-operation, this new way of dealing with workers in Ontario? Where is it?

Another situation bothers me. There is a lack of any planning that we can see or get our teeth into in what is happening in the changing pattern of employment in Ontario and what we do when a firm is in trouble. I am not a great one for dishing out public funds to the private sector, at least not the way we have done it up until now, but if we are going to do that then I want to know clearly what kind of an agreement there is and what kinds of guarantees we receive for public funds in terms of jobs, protection and planning for the future for the workers in Ontario.

3:40 p.m.

We have a very interesting situation. There have been meetings with government ministers who were called in the other day or were requested to meet with some of the management and ownership of the Royal Connaught Hotel in downtown Hamilton. I refer the members to an

article in Saturday's Hamilton Spectator which I think lays out the story pretty well. It is about the same thing we got when we met with the owners of that hotel.

What was the position they put to us? They put to us that in the last two or three years they have been losing about $800,000 a year. They cannot continue that way. One of the reasons was they did not have the recreation facilities, the pool and many of the things they needed, particularly in order to compete with the two new hotels -- although I think we have been taken to the cleaners on one of them -- that we hope are going up in Hamilton.

They pointed out those two new hotels in Hamilton have qualified for and were getting, in some of the frantic negotiations that have been going on between the federal and provincial governments, about $12 million in assistance. They also pointed out to us that they themselves have spent about $10 million over the last three or four years on renovations in the Royal Connaught Hotel. They need to spend an additional $5 million, roughly, to bring it up to par. They expect to be able to raise some of that themselves.

Because they have not had one cent of assistance -- they stress that and I am taking it at face value; I have no way of checking -- from either level of government and will be faced with competition from two brand-new hotels that have received about $12 million of the taxpayers' money, they are asking for $3.1 million to expand and to finish the renovation they started about three years ago and to keep them in business.

This raises some serious questions; it raises some serious questions with me as well. But I have difficulty in arguing against their logic, given what we have done with the other two hotels. I am really not sure we should be in this private enterprise funding at all, but the fact is we are. There has been almost a race to see how much more money the two new hotels could get in Hamilton.

Here we have the most established hotel to date. It has been there a long time. It is not venerable; it is not that old yet, but it is an institution that is part of the city of Hamilton and that anchors the east end of downtown Hamilton. They go so far as to tell us that they either need to know they have this kind of money -- they say they do not even need all the cash but some guarantees that they have got most of it, or certainly very low-interest loans to cover most of it -- or they will be shut down by December.

On top of everything else -- and they may be using a little muscle there, too; I do not know -- what would happen in downtown Hamilton and elsewhere in Hamilton if a hotel like the Royal Connaught were forced to shut down, if the several hundred workers there went as well; if the anchor at the east-end of the downtown development we have been trying to get in Hamilton really were undercut tremendously with that one move?

Where is the pattern? What is it? Is it how loudly they yell and whether or not they can get to enough cabinet ministers that will determine whether the Royal Connaught will get some help from the provincial and federal governments? Or are they going to be out of luck? And how do they rationalize this as against the two new units that are going up in downtown Hamilton?

Without passing judgement, I am saying if there is any rational planning and any rational pattern in the plans to develop cities, to protect jobs or to decide who, when and how somebody gets access to the public treasury, I do not know what it is; and I certainly do not get any clear outline in the throne speech we had here in the House the other day.

We have a real dispute going on in our city over the government of Ontario advanced light rail transit. The minister responsible can dance all he wants on the issue. I can tell him that the perception right across town -- and I have not jumped on a particular route on this issue myself as yet -- is that the city of Hamilton wants the elevated York Street route to show off its new cars, and we either go that way, which is certainly the route the province is pushing, or we do not get the darn thing; they will stop it in Burlington. This makes no sense whatsoever, but it is the kind of blackmail, if you like, that the city is getting.

I simply have to ask, is this what we are talking about in the words that are in the throne speech about co-operation and working together, whether it is with workers or whether it is with communities across the province?

There is another interesting thing. When the city is using this kind of clout, what are its commitments? There has been some real misunderstanding as to how much the provincial government is going to be responsible for in the development of this expressway into downtown Hamilton.

It has been estimated to cost about $140 million. We understand, although now I have people questioning it, Hamilton-Wentworth would be taking responsibility for 25 per cent of the cost and the ministry would assume 75 per cent of the funding for the project. Some people were a little bit shocked when I put that proposition to them. Is it accurate?

When will the minister clearly outline to the region exactly what share in the cost the ministry is going to cover, if indeed they do proceed with the GO-ALRT route into the city of Hamilton?

We in this party have argued, and argued very hard, for the expenditure of some funds to bring in one of the plants that was supposed to be a state of the art piece when it was developed a good many years ago, the solid waste reduction unit plant for garbage burning in the east end of Hamilton. To date there is a desperate need for changes that allow them to burn at a higher temperature so we do not have heavy emissions, the dioxins that are coming out now and that are scaring people.

Although we are told it is probably on the list, we have real difficulties finding out when, and indeed if, the Ministry of the Environment is prepared to move. That is a possible job creation program. In the meantime, the public is more and more upset by continuing controversy over just how effective are the ministry tests. There is serious question as to the adequacy of the ministry tests.

They are testing at low burns, they are testing with only one boiler on and in circumstances that do not allow one to have a true reading of the dioxins that are escaping from that plant, instead of getting under way with what we know has to be done if this operation is to continue in place -- and I think it would be a crime to have to shut it down. We have to have some pretty fast action by the ministry in renewing and redoing the Swaru facility.

I see nothing about something as important as that and it is one of the burning operations that can be used as an example, as a pilot project in Ontario. It should be a priority item, but we do not see anything happening.

In this House I have heard the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), and I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), say, when we raised questions and concerns on unemployment: "We have had a meeting with the Ontario Federation of Labour, or we have one planned. Why do you people not give us some ideas or suggestions?"

The government might have someone in there to hear what we are saying just so it can try to counter it, but obviously it does not pay much attention to the suggestions we have been making on a regular basis. I think some of them are sound. We have made suggestions on the bridging provisions, to get some of the older workers out of heavy jobs in the labour force and open up some jobs for younger people. We have suggested programs that mean something for young people in Ontario. We have suggested programs that advocate more self-sufficiency so we do less importing than we now do in Ontario. We do not see any action.

I looked with interest at the OFL's brief when it met with the government; in it there were a number of suggestions. Some of them are tried and true; the charges that they were not giving any specific proposals do not hold water, because in their brief they talk about labour-intensive projects such as construction of highways and public housing. I dealt at some length with public housing; certainly there is employment as well as a social need to be served if we get on with that and we are not doing it.

There have been suggestions concerning the jobs that are needed in services; the housing incentives; the commitment to reforestation, particularly in northern Ontario, with communities solely dependent on the pulp and paper industry; the construction of chronic care facilities; accelerated plans for new transit systems -- Oshawa-Hamilton is an example, but it is not much good if the route the government wants to go for its purposes is one that nobody else in the city wants; and the protection of jobs in the auto industry, which is crucial to the manufacturing industry and Ontario itself.

3:50 p.m.

This party has raised, time and time again, the need for Canadian content legislation in the automotive industry. For those who accuse us of being simply protectionists or being away off base, we keep trying to tell them that some of their own friends, certainly in the auto parts industry, have come out very strongly in support of content legislation. The government has not heard any arguments from the basic steel industry on it; it certainly has the union and the workers on side.

This in itself can be one of the key answers to keeping the industrial and manufacturing base in the province going until we can take a serious look at what we are facing with respect to the change in work in this province; and there are going to be some drastic changes. It is one of the things that will give us some time, some bridging in current jobs in Ontario.

An excellent little booklet was put out that I would recommend to all members on the Tory side of the House. Undoubtedly it will not change them if this is not the direction their government wants to go, but at least they might have to take a look at some of the facts and figures and some of the arguments that are in this booklet put out by the United Auto Workers.

They point out that directly related employment in this sector is about 220,000 jobs, and that a number of the companies have only a small portion of their jobs in the auto sector but depend on their automotive base for their strength and, in many cases, for their survival in industry.

"The major auto makers buy parts and services from more than 13,000 companies in Canada. Almost 10,000 of these businesses are smaller companies which employ fewer than 100 employees." So we are not talking just about the giants here; we are talking about the base and small industries that reach into many of the small towns around Ontario, as well as the many plants we have in the automotive parts industry in the Toronto and Hamilton areas.

"The Canadian auto industry accounts for half of Canada's trade in manufactured goods and about 60 per cent of our exports." It is an interesting sidelight, one of the things we found out in the plant shutdown committee, that some of the branch plants and some of the small automotive suppliers were set up to supply only the Canadian market and were forbidden under the licensing arrangements or the agreements they had with their head office companies to do any exporting; that was forbidden. It was not that they could not necessarily compete, but they were not allowed to do it. If we could free it up a bit, we would probably have the ability to do an awful lot more exporting in that field.

"We have the world's seventh largest market for vehicles. We have an abundance of raw materials essential to the industry. We have efficient feeder industries in materials processing and semi-finished goods such as steel, petrochemical and metal rolling.

"Canada's transportation infrastructure and service system is well equipped to handle the requirements of automotive manufacturing. Most important of all" -- and these are the people I am concerned about -- "we have a skilled labour force and labour costs" -- this sometimes is hard for other members in this House to realize -- "that are really competitive with most industrialized nations in the world."

We have been relatively competitive in the auto industry and we have significant potential advantages. Why can we not get our fair share of jobs by just leaving development to the free market? Two or three of the key paragraphs in this document come up next.

"First, the reality is that markets are not really free. Most industrialized countries and many developing countries consider the automotive industry to be a central part of their economies." They are now realizing what we are letting slip and should have been realizing a long time ago, so they have developed a range of policies to maintain and strengthen their own industries; policies such as government ownership, grants and subsidies and trade restrictions. If other countries have a policy to guarantee themselves jobs but we do not, it is clear we will not get our share of jobs in the province.

It would be interesting when we are thinking about the future of work, when we are thinking about whether or not there is a case to be made for content legislation in the automotive industry, to take a look at five or six other countries in the world.

If we take a look at Italy, imports are kept to 2,000 units, about 0.2 per cent of the market; in France, Japanese imports are kept to three per cent of the market; in the United Kingdom, Japanese imports are kept to 10 per cent or 11 per cent of the market; in West Germany, Japanese imports are kept to 10 per cent of the market; and in Spain, tariffs are 50 per cent and there are content laws and limits on imports.

If we take a look at Mexico -- and incidentally, as I tried to point out in this House, our lack of policies is the major reason we are losing Allen Industries in another couple of months; it has already bought the entire plant at Chihuahua, Mexico, to transfer that operation -- Mexico has tariffs of 100 per cent, content laws and a limit on imports.

Australia has tariffs of more than 50 per cent, imports are limited to 20 per cent and there is content legislation. That should clearly tell us that all of these countries have decided the auto sector is pretty doggone key to their economies. It used to be very key to our economy and we used to have a pretty good run at it, but we are losing it more rapidly than many sectors.

We are going to have to take a look at what we do in this sector. Canada has the potential to have a strong industry but we remain vulnerable, given our branch plant type of economy and the worldwide restructuring that has taken place. If we do not introduce policies such as Canadian content, we are going to be in serious trouble.

What is content and what does it do? I want to finish with a few final comments on this because I think it is food for some thought and discussion among members of this House. Content basically means corporations must make a commitment to jobs in Canada. This commitment depends on how much they sell in Canada. In an uncertain world, content is a way of guaranteeing jobs for Canadian workers and markets for their commodities. Content is a way to guarantee such jobs but also for trade to continue.

Corporations meeting the content provisions by sourcing in Canada or exporting from Canada can freely import into Canada, so it can work both ways, but we have at least a guarantee that some of the jobs are going to stay here. If corporations are free to move jobs unilaterally wherever they please, the pressure is increased on workers, communities and governments to compete for jobs, to make concessions in living standards, to lower corporate taxes while increasing personal taxes and to increase corporate subsidies while decreasing community services.

Does that not sound familiar to members as being exactly what has been going on across this country, whether it is in industry in the jobs, in the tax structures or in the services to people? Content is an alternative to such inequities. It puts the focus on corporate commitments to Canada, rather than our commitments to the corporations. What is wrong with a bit of commitment to Canada for a change?

We simply have to take a serious look at a major answer to part of our problems, as well as the other things I have raised and we have raised; and that is content legislation here in Canada. It is not just the auto workers or those in allied industries crying out for the jobs, it is many of the manufacturers themselves. It is the steel industry now. It is a number of responsible citizens in this province. I see nothing whatsoever in the throne speech that deals with the question of whether we should even be paying any attention to it, let alone taking any action on the issue.

The lack of any real action on pensions and older and younger workers probably were the two things that provoked me as much as anything. I want to point out we had a committee that looked at pensions. We have had private members' bills in this House. I introduced one three or four years ago that went through this House as a private member's bill. We had a debate on it. It called for vesting when transferring pensions and some kind of a central agency to handle it.

There seemed to be a commitment from members on all sides of the House to at least some of those points. We have seen absolutely nothing happen on it. We have had no action on it. One of the tragedies is the situation we are in with regard to the inadequacy of private pensions, but we are not even doing the few things in terms of transfer rights there, early vesting and so on, that would improve what there is in private industry. We are also taking a dog-in-the-manger attitude that says we cannot afford to take a look at the answer, and that is improvements in the public pension in this province and in this country of ours.

There is a lack of any government initiative -- mostly federal but the provincial government could sure act as the catalyst to move the feds if it decided for once to come on side in that issue -- to do something for the people in the province.

4 p.m.

I want to point out people do start to react. I have been amazed at the number of people who have been phoning in and attending meetings at the Eaton Co. For example, including right here in downtown Toronto, I am told it is not hundreds but now thousands who are phoning. It is not just because they finally broke the dam in Brampton and not because they finally started moving in the St. Catharines operation. What has been happening there is the Eaton Co., like so many of the big ones, had been putting more and more of its workers, some of them long-time, long-service workers, on part-time and short-time jobs.

They began to lose many of the benefits they had in the operation. It has involved a vast number of the workers. All of a sudden, loyal workers who would never take a look at a union -- and it is unfortunate to have to say that, but previously they would not have -- are saying: "This company is taking us to the cleaners. Its interests are not our interests. They are not protecting our security, our jobs and our hours. We have to get by on less." They do not see anybody worrying about it in the Tory government across the way.

What is the obvious result? They are saying in desperation, "What can we do? Is there an avenue?" Something most people a matter of months ago thought could not happen is in the process of happening today.

With all these issues, as the older people, the poor people, the young people and the pensioners begin to realize that as long as the Tories are riding high in the polls they do not have to do anything about them and are not doing anything about them, I suspect these people are going to start getting angry when those issues start getting out. If anything is wrong in Ontario in what is happening with people, it is they have not yet decided to get angry, and I mean really angry.

Heaven help us when they do. I think it is going to come. I am sorry to have to say it, but I think it is probably what has to happen in Ontario. There has to be an understanding that any recovery, if indeed there is any recovery in the economy, is not benefiting ordinary people in Ontario.

I want to bring to a close the few comments I have by mentioning briefly the task force on work, people and technological change I had the privilege to serve on in my own caucus. We have called our report The Future of Work.

Rather than go through the many fine points of that task force report -- and I point out it is not even party policy, although I hope a lot of it will become resolutions at our coming convention -- I would say it is one of the first serious efforts to lay out the size of the problem, some of the potential problems, some of the possible solutions and to start in a hurry -- I stress in a hurry -- a real debate on what is happening to the future of work in this province. It is a serious and honest effort to do exactly that.

When one gets some of the evidence given to us as we travelled across the province, one realizes how ridiculous was the response of the Treasurer when the press asked him about it in the scrum. He said: "I really reject the New Democratic Party. All they are looking at is a downturn in employment. They are not being realistic. We are looking at the fantastic and potential benefits of the spinoff industries." I would really like to have the Treasurer of this province tell us what he is thinking of in terms of the spinoff industries.

It reminds me of the old comment: how many different kinds of underarm deodorant can one make and sell? What is happening is we are facing a change that is probably more dramatic than any lifestyle or work force change we have ever seen before in the history of the province.

Maybe I can illustrate it best with one small case that really gripped all of us on the committee, and there were a number of cases. I want to use a few of the figures given to us, not by New Democrats but by some of the experts we talked to about this issue, some of the professional people and the university people we talked to on this issue. I also want to use as the most effective argument I can what has happened at Glendale Spinning Mills in Hamilton.

It is a mill that employed almost 300 workers three short years ago, an old mill that went into receivership, that could not compete. It had been there a long time and had a good reputation, but it was an old mill. It was a mill the fire department in Hamilton probably would have shut down many times because there were fires almost every week in the cotton dust and because of the bad conditions in that mill. It was a mill where the work was heavy for the women and heavy for the men. But it was a mill that had been part of Hamilton and the textile industry for many years.

After it went into receivership, some efforts were made. There was some federal funding. The new manager is a chap from the Philippines. They decided to make it a state-of-the-art mill in Ontario. If one goes into that mill today -- and it might help to drive the message home to some of the Tories if they would do what we did and go through the mill -- one will find three sets of machinery in operation.

The old machinery, which is still what exists in many plants in Canada, is sitting in basements. It is a bit ironic and sad to have the management say, "We have sold all this old equipment to Guatemala, but it is really costing us more to pack and ship it than we are getting for it." Poor Guatemala is one of the things I have to say about that operation.

When one goes into that mill, what does one find? One will find one line of machinery with about 240 spindles on it producing at about 5,000 revolutions per minute with manual load and unload of the spindles of thread when they are finished. One will find side by side a second line of machinery with about 80 spindles running at almost 19,000 rpms with automatic load and unload. In a separate room in the plant is a third line of machinery that is different entirely, where they have eliminated the entire second operation.

One goes from the raw cotton to cotton thread about the size of what one would knit with. Then one goes through the second operation, and it is down to the size of thread. The third operation in that plant takes the raw cotton from the large size and eliminates the middle operation entirely. It travels as fast or faster than the 19,000 rpm, 800-spindle machine. It takes the cotton balls off the end and packages them. Two people run it.

When we were there management told us proudly they were operating that plant with 108 workers as against almost 300 and they were producing a lot more. They also told us they were now competitive, and I can only take their word for it. But even in Hong Kong and Taiwan, in third world countries, they are now charging about $7 or $7.40 for a big spindle of cotton thread. They also told us that when they finished the total operation, it would be operating with 54 employees with even better production.

Here we have fantastically increased production. We have a much better mill. It is cleaner and easier to operate. The employees love the working conditions. There are no more fires and there are big vacuums on every machine. It is a lovely operation. It is a situation in which we should be happy to have workers working. It is not the most dramatic example by any means, but it is a clear example of where there are now 108 and very shortly there will be 54 workers achieving fantastically increased production compared to what 300 did.

The serious question I have is backed up by a little piece I saw in Microbits. This publication may be assisted by the technology industry or by government financing, I am not sure. The last edition had three little paragraphs at the beginning which pointed out there was a survey going on, to be completed very shortly by this government, which would point out some of the results of microtechnology beginning to move into the industrial sector.

They went on to say that the initial survey showed that a large percentage of the firms had increased production and lowered costs. It was fantastic. I think 83 per cent showed a smaller labour force and labour costs and all showed increased production. Obviously, that is exactly what has happened in the Glendale Spinning Mills situation.

The question I am posing to this House and to the government members in particular is, what in blazes are we going to do when this kind of change in manufacturing is rushing at us like an express train, let alone what may happen in the service or office industries? What are going to do with the 250 people who are no longer able to work in that mill?

The company has increased production, increased profit and has a better and cleaner operation. It is probably less costly in everything, right down to Workers' Compensation Board claims in that plant. The workers who are left are certainly happier. But what are we going to do with the 250 who are no longer there? That is a pattern that will be repeated. It begs a question I know a Tory does not like to think about. Who controls this kind of technology and how do we do the job of distribution in terms of the benefits that accrue as a result of this kind of change?

4:10 p.m.

When we talked to 13 professionals at a roundtable session in Waterloo University, what was one of the things they told us? They told us that the percentage of our labour force in manufacturing -- and I have had two or three different sets of figures, but it is now in the range of 24 to 25 per cent -- could be as low as eight to 10 per cent by as early as 1992. As I say, there were a number of people there and they were not necessarily ours.

I shot those figures at Dr. A. C. Frost, head of the microtechnology centre at McMaster University, when we were talking to the people there just to ask, "Do they shock you?" I said: "Some of the people we have talked to around Ontario have told us we could be looking at as low as eight or 10 per cent of our work force involved in manufacturing in this province in as short a time as eight years down the road. Is there any truth to it? Do you accept those figures?"

His answer to me was pretty straightforward. He said: "Nobody can tell you for sure. We do not know what is going to happen in terms of service industries."

We know that is one of the things that has saved us until now, but we also know it is one of the areas this government is certainly not letting expand, if it is not actually cutting back. I do not know how many more people we can put into McDonald's hamburger jobs in Ontario."

He also said that while they could not tell us exactly what was going to happen, there would likely be a reduction. He had heard the figure put as low as four to five per cent, never mind eight to 10 per cent. Nobody knows, but almost everybody agrees we are facing a rather dramatic change in what we know as work in this province and in this country.

I ask the Tories once again, what in the throne speech says anything about this problem? Do they not want to face it? I understand from my sources they are now talking about setting up their own task force on microtechnology or on what may happen. It had better be done damned quickly. There had better be an honest commitment to look at how much of a problem we are facing and how we are going to deal with it.

Is the answer some new jobs we do not know of today? Is the answer a shorter work week? That is probably part of it. I do not think there is any single answer. A whole package of answers is going to be needed.

Is it in doing away with little steps such as planned overtime? I get into arguments with some of my friends in the automotive field, but one would be surprised at the amount of planned overtime that still goes on in some of the automobile plants. Do we make a serious commitment and say, "We know we cannot stop emergency overtime in crisis situations, but we had better start taking a look at whether we will allow planned overtime"?

Do we take a look at a reduction? Not tomorrow. We cannot do it that fast. But if there is the growth in productivity shown in the first bit of the report in the last issue of Microbits, a combination of productivity growth and a cut in hours over the next four, five, six or seven years could well bring us down to a 32-hour week.

I do not know how much of the answer that is. I personally happen to think it is a good chunk of it. Those are some of the things we have to take a look at.

I think there is real merit in taking a look at workers. I mentioned two or three times how desperate the situation was for the Consolidated-Bathurst workers. We are finding out that at 55 years of age, when they have been 25 years in a mill, it is too late to send them to try to get upgrading or new skills. It is not working. Even the 18 or 28 who are involved in it at this moment in Hamilton are not happy with it. My figures are from last Thursday. They do not believe it is helping them. Some of them are staying in the upgrading program because it is the only way they can still continue to collect unemployment insurance. It is not an answer at 55 or 60 years of age.

Is the answer that we have to work out a sabbatical such as some professors have? Should they be banking credits where they work so that every fourth or fifth year they can, if they want, spend a year in a retraining program and receive their pay for it? We are going to have to develop something that says workers are able to retrain several times in their lifetimes. We must not get shot down because of potential costs. We will have to take a look at what we can do to build up and put in place a program that allows this kind of change.

We have to do all these things. We are obviously also going to have to involve the workers themselves one hell of a lot more in decision-making. The answer today was totally inadequate. The president of a big local such as the one at Inco in Port Colborne went in to ask management, the guy they deal with: "These are the rumours going around the plant. Is there any truth to them?"

One can think what his respect for them will be from this day on. He was told: "Absolutely not. We will have nothing but the normal summer layoffs." The next day he was called in and the announcement was made that 500 workers were out permanently.

We will have to involve the workers more quickly and much more in the decisions that are made. We will have to challenge seriously what have become entrenched as management rights in contracts. That does not mean we want the right to involve and change anything and everything that happens in a plant. It means when a major technological change is going to affect the workers, their livelihood and the community they work in, they are going to have to have some say, rather than just being told, even if it is a Saturday or several weeks in advance, exactly what is going to happen.

We are going to have to look at interim measures. I think the content legislation is only an interim measure. I suspect that is the way a number of countries will handle it. I was talking the other day to one of the journalists who covered our task force report. He told me about one of the things that really fascinated him -- he had been over in Japan a few months ago and had been following up some of his investigations. From what he was picking up, the Japanese were on the verge, within the next three or four years, of moving the entire assembly of automobiles out of Japan.

They were looking at Pakistan in particular, but at one or two other locations as well. They are obviously going to have that in place, if they are thinking that far down the road and are able to do it, because of the mechanics of scale, cost and the new technology.

Has any of this crossed the minds of government members? Are they taking a look at what the heck they have to do in terms of the future of work and workers in this province? I do not see it in the throne speech. As I said when I started, I am hoping we may get a better picture when we see the budget presentation. There is certainly nothing in the throne speech to give any hope at all to workers, poor people, older people, pensioners and young unemployed workers in this province.

The government is going to be held responsible for the reaction to that. I think it is going to come sooner rather than later, and the government has one hell of a lot to be held responsible for. The throne speech is totally inadequate.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank you and all honourable members of the House for selecting me for the fourth consecutive year to be the deputy chairman of the committees of the whole House. I have found it a great honour to be of service to the House and to have had the opportunity of working with the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz).

It is a tremendous way to learn the workings of the Legislature, to sit in that chair and be as nonpartisan as possible, to look at both sides of the House and try to maintain a sense of equity and fairness, a sense of humour and all those things one learns by doing the job. Again, I thank all honourable members who elected me to this great office for one more year, or at least for this session.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: I am fully forgiving towards those who did not vote for me. I will try to be totally nonpartisan. I had more trouble from the fellows on this side of the House than I did from the others.

An hon. member: So it should be.

Mr. Cousens: I also want to congratulate the Deputy Speaker on the way he is fulfilling his job. I wish him continued great success as he sits in the chair. I know he takes his work very seriously.

The other day, as I was sitting in the chair, I had the pleasure of listening to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). I was very impressed by the comments he had to make on an issue that crosses the boundaries of all parliamentarians, federally and provincially. That has to do with the whole situation of human rights in the Soviet Union and the need to support the refuseniks, those people in Russia who would like to have visas to emigrate to another land. What the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk had to say was a testimony to what we as parliamentarians and legislators should be doing all the time.

We are so fortunate to live in this land with such freedoms and the luxury of being able to vote and select those who are going to represent us, to move from province to province and land to land and to be able to make a living. We have so many freedoms, such as the freedom to have a job and to have an education. When I think of Shcharansky and some others in the Soviet Union whose rights have been abrogated, who have no sense of freedom, I am indeed proud to know there are members from our Legislature who are taking this very seriously.

4:20 p.m.

When I think of the small committee we have, with the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) and the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) as the three chairpeople who are responsible for this all-party committee on Soviet Jewry, I am pleased to be part of that. If there is anything we should be doing now, it is to continue to promote the needs of those people in the Soviet Union who would like to have something of the freedom we enjoy.

Just today, I received in the mail something from the leader of the third party. He too was sharing some information he had received. There are two things we have to do. We have to put pressure on the Soviets. I think the kind of thing the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk did is a symbol of that, by going there and taking the time, as a non-Jew and as one who has a deep concern. But also we must share our concern with the refuseniks so that we, on the outside, are able to let them know we care.

I do not think we should let up on that vigil. In many lands throughout the world there are people who do not have anything close to what we have. We should never say our responsibility is only for Ontario or for our ridings. Our responsibility crosses the boundaries of all colours, races, religions and lands. When we are talking about these needs, we should do so in a genuine way.

I commend very genuinely the remarks that were given to us the other day by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I personally appreciated the fact that he could be there, as my representative as well, in going to the Soviet Union to make the kind of commitment and representation he would have made for us.

I also have one other little sidelight that ties into the whole throne speech. It has to do with an association of high-technology companies situated in the northeast part of Metro Toronto and south York region. They have formed an association known as the York Technology Association. It is an association of 100 or so companies and has senior executives represented in it. The president of MDS Canada and I, as co-chairmen of this association, listen to what governments are trying to do, how governments are trying to serve the business community and how they are trying to serve the people of this province.

As an association, we have been impressed at the willingness of this province's government to work with the association. Typical of the interchange and dialogue that take place, for instance, is the way in which the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) will be meeting with the association prior to his budget to discuss some of the facets that would pertain to high technology.

The dialogue that has to go on among business, labour and government has to be accelerated. When the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) was talking --

Mr. Mackenzie: Not one-sided.

Mr. Cousens: It cannot be one-sided, for sure. I ended up agreeing with him more today than I had thought I would, because when one starts hearing about people losing their jobs, not being informed and not having a sharing of information, having the kind of surprise the member for Hamilton East was talking about, it is the kind of thing we should all be working on together to try to build bridges rather than fences. We should be working to have a better understanding of the needs of all people in this province. Again, that is incumbent on each one of us so that we are no