Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTimes Advocate, 1991-08-07, Page 3III TF -IF NFW.S Times -Advocate, August 7, 1991 Page 3 Mathyssen's complaints all sound and fury, says columnist Last month an editorial emanat- ing from the St. Marys Journal Ar- gus criticizing proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act. found its way into a number of newspapers in the province - including the Ex- eter -Times Advocate. The editorial certainly struck a cord with Middlesex MPP Irene Mathyssen, one of the neophytes catapulted into power during the freak electoral storm of last fall. And she claims numerous area residents telephoned her, "terrified by the editorial". She promptly wrote a letter to the Times -Advocate saying that, "be- sides being factually incorrect, your editorial perpetuates the an- tagonism that this government wants to eliminate." Last week I called Mathyssen to discuss her letter and to ask her to point out these inaccuracies so they could be corrected. She couldn't re- member the specifics, so 1 read the editorial to her over the telephone. At first I couldn't get past the headline: 'NDP planning massive attack on private business.' "Well right there, that's inaccu- rate," she said. "That headline's not true. We're not planning a massive attack on private business." I argued that whether someone was attacking or not was really more a matter of perspective than of fact. Her reply was" "It was inflamma- mIycontinued to read the editorial to her, which contains a list of pro- posals to amend the Labor Rela- tions Act. Here is the list from the editori- al:" a: employers would be prohibited from replacing striking workers during a labor dispute; b: workers would be allowed to refuse to handle work from an em- ployer whose employees were on strike; c: restrictions on the introduction of technological changes; d: prohibition against employees seeking direct discussions with em- ployees during collective Wrgain- ing; e: arbitrary imposition by the La- bour Relations Board of provisions it thinks are reasonable; f: the elimination of employees' rights to petition against a union and even compulsory disclosure of profit statements by company own- ers. I asked her to respond, prepared to hear and record the complaints about these allegedly distorted facts. This what I got: Do you have any idea how many people are on welfare? Did you know that 40 percent of the people on welfare are children? You don't turn your back on chil- dren." "Pardon me?" I asked. "With all due respect, what does that have to do with anything we're talking about?" "The federal government was supposed to amend the bankruptcy act but they didn't. These workers have put their lives alto compa- nies and then end up with noth- ing...." she said. "I guess I was just reacting emo- tionally to the 16 -hour days. We're tying to change things, we're try- ing to do something here and then you come along with an editorial like that," she added. She was critical of the fact that a protest against the government earlier this year by "those people from Bay Street' was attended by some who arrived in limousines and Mercedes. "No workers arrived by limo and Mercedes, " she pointed out. (What are those NDP hot shots using these days? Pogo sticks?) I asked her again to enumerate the factual inaccuracies. She admitted she coulgn't do it. She treated me to another ha- rangue of NDP rhetoric which concluded with the statement: "We represent all the people." Letter to Editor By David Greenberg St. Marys Journal .Argus She said she would fax me something in response and we would discuss it the next week be- fore deadline. Her response ar- rived Saturday afternoon. (reprint- ed below). In it she again asserts that the headline is false and she adds the following: "The second glaring inaccuracy is the absolutely false statement that these proposals are precisely what Minister MacKenzie will in- troduce this fall." She says these proposals are merely "suggestions" and that the editorial wrongly represented them as government policy. The editorial was biased as well as inaccurate, she states, and was "mascarading (sic) as all the facts." However, her letter utterly fails to dislodge a single point con- tained in the editorial. As a matter of fact she does not even address the body of the editorial at all. I called her at home on Monday to discuss her letter. She advised me that she would not consider discussing the "facts" in the editorial because the prem- ise was "totally fallacious". The original editorial stated: "Legislation is to be introduced this fall by labour minister Bob MacKenzie to amend the Labour Relations Act exactly as noted above." She states in her second letter that the editorial "quotes... from the labour proposals(!)" but "nei- ther examined nor acknowledged the recommendations of the busi- ness members" of the panel. (This panel, composed of three labour representatives and three MPP Mathyssen's response Dear Editor: I am writing a second letter in response to our telephone conver- sation in which you challenged me to show how your editorial was in- accurate. • I would like to begin by pointing out that at a time when the indus- trial nations of the world have come to realize that co-operation among government, labour, and business is essential to success, we in Ontario still face the same old adversarial rhetoric that marked the business and labour relation- ships of the past. This does not make sense in the current econom- ic situation. Even the Americans, those crusaders for the rights of business to regulate the market- place, have begun to put together an economic strategy that has co- operation among government, business, and labour as its central principle. The editorial originally printed in the St. Marys Journal Argus and reprinted in the Exeter Times Ad- vocate on July 10, 1991, "NDP planning massive attack on private business", has a number of inaccu- racies. First and foremost is the head- line. The government of Ontario has made it very clear that its goal is to work for every person in the province. The reality is that the current recession, the worst since W.W. II, is the result of global ec- onomic restructuring. Ontario has to respond to this new reality. The government has actively tried to address some of the problems busi- ness face in this changing environ- ment. Premier Rae has had more than 80 meetings with business leaders Usborne & Hibbert Mutual Firsurance Company Exeter, Ontario NOM 1S1 (Established in 1876) Provides Full Insurance Coverage for Farm Properties New Applications are Welcomed DIRECTORS & ADJUSTERS Jock Harrigan RR 3 Lucian .22T-4301 Larry Gstd'iner, RR2, Staffs 345.2$76 Lloyd Morrison, RRt Si. Marys 2214277 Lana Feeney, Mitchell 341-11053 Jack Hodgert, RR1, Kirkton 2294162 Joseph Chaffs, RR5 Mitchell 341-$706 AGENTS Ross Hodgen, E aster .2354210 .bhn Moore, Dublin 345-2612 Joseph Wise, M td it 349-1011 Head Office, Exeter 2354910 Firs sxtingulshsrs for sets to our policyholders at below cost. Refills sr* Ares - check wIh your scant. in an effort to hear their concerns and to facilitate business, labour co-operation. The April budget allocates $57 million for finacial [sic] assistance to small and medium-sized manu- facturing firms. Small and medi- um-sized business create the most jobs and make the 1111 investments in the communities of Ontario. The $57 million from the government is a tangible commitment to the survi- val of those businesses. The ongoing negotiations in Sault Ste Marie to save Algoma Steel is yet another example of a govern- ment that is determined to maintain and secure the industrial base that is the life blood of Ontario. The second glaring inaccuracy is the absolutely false statement that these proposals are precisely what Minister MacKenzie will introduce this fall. The reality is that. the Minister of Labour asked a private sector, six -member panel to present recommendations to- the mtmster regarding the kinds of changes to the Act .they see as necessary. Three of these members were from labour and three were from busi- ness. Four of the six were lawyers. Your editorial quotes from' only half of this panel's document: the labour proposals. You have nei- ther examined nor acknowledged the recommendations from the business members. You have also misrepresented this consultation paper as government policy. At this point, these proposals are sug- gestions. The minister has not tak- en this document to cabinet. The consultation period has not yet even been completed. The questions that must be asked are: 1. Why did you examine only part of the document? 2. Did you do the necessary research to make sure you had all the pertinent infor- mation before you went to print? Finally, I would like to respond to the general tone of the July 10 editorial. I can only repeat my earlier as- sertion that your editorial perpetu- ates an antagonistic and confronta- tional relationship that will ultimately help no one. It creates panic that will intimidate investors and scare off business - exactly the opposite of what Ontarians want. The media has an obligation to present all the information, even if means better research practices. Surely there's nothing to fear from a balanced perspective. The peo- ple of the province deserve better than biased editorial opinions mas- carading [sic] as all the facts. Sincerely, Irene Mathyssen MPP, Middlesex CORRECTION NOTICE The Director of Investigation and Research (Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada) has informed Honda Canada Inc. that the following representation which appeared in an advertising program sponsored by Honda Canada Inc. and the Ontario Honda Dealers Association during March and April, 1990 has raised questions under Section 52 (1) (a) of the Competition Act: "A FREE CEI,I,IJI,AR CAR PHONE (including installation) with every new, in stock 1990 Honda." s because the offer was only available if it was not combined with any other offer or discount which might otherwise have been available from the dealer under normal circumstances. It has always been and will continue to be the intention of Honda Canada inc. and its dealers to ensure that all of our advertisements are correct and do not create a false or mislead- ing general impression. management representatives, pro- duced two reports to the minister of labour: one from each side.) How charming. Here we have an NDP MPP chastising an edito- rial writer for only reporting la- bour's viewpoint! That's a lively, novel suggestion, Ms. Mathyssen, but it's not the rec- ommendations from the business community that are of interest or concern, or, have caused such alarm. She advised me to read both re- ports rather than base editorials on only the labour report. I have read them. 1 asked her if she had read the re- ports. "I've seen them... bits and pieces," she replied. I attempted several times to read portions of the management report to her. She refused to hear it. She accused me of having "some cockamamie idea that you're here to keep everyone honest," and slammed down the receiver. This is an excerpt from the con- clusions of the management report: - "The proposals put forward -for= discussion by the Ministry (and which have been considerably ex- tended by the union members of the committee) go beyond mere amend- ments to the legislation. "They represent a fundamental re- structuring of the way in which la- bour and management relations would be conducted in Ontario. "All aspects of labour relations law would be subject to radical change." The management report also states that "This approach... is not a recipe for 'partnership.' .. This approach is counterpro- ductive. It will not lead to 'partner- ship' but to protracted litigation and dispute." Mathyssen's repeated assertion that somehow the editorial perpetu- AEINvt STMENTS 524-2773 coa.ncn 1-800-265-5503 ates antagonism and confrontation would be laughable if it were not so blind and self-centred. The editorial Was a direct re- sponse to what is quite genuinely perceived as a government attack on small business. How much more confrontational can you get than to tell some fellow with 12 employees that if three of them form a bargaining unit and go on strike: he can't replace them; the labour relations board will decide whether he's being reasonable or not; he will not be allowed to talk to his employees or even remove them from the premises... etc. Like many of her NDP brothers and sisters, Mathyssen views any criticism of government policy or proposed policy as an attack on wel- fare children or pregnant women, or injured workers or whatever trendy cause is getting its fifteen minutes this week. These labour act proposals - what- ever rhetoric is emanating from Ma- thyssen or Bob Rae or Bob Macken- zie about them - will ensure votes for the NDP by paying off the Un- ions for years of support. It may be premature to say these proposals are exactly what will be introduced in the fall, but it's almost guaranteed that this will be govern- ment policy if the NDP can get away with it. (David Greenberg is the editorial writer for the St. Marys Journal - Argus and holds the cockamamie idea that politicans must be held accountable for what they say and do.. ) We're Fully Eauipped for An Job Our fleet of trucks. CUSTOM CRUSHING AND SCREENING OF GRAVEL 'Supplying you with various aggregate materials in gravel and stone. Crusher operating at our pit. We have the capacity to meet your needs In gravel and stone. Our Gravel/Stone Screener operating at our pit. Our fleet of excavators - loaders - bulldozers. •TRUCKING *GRAVEL, SAND & STONE •BULLDOZING 'EXCAVATING •TOPSOIL 'SEPTIC SYSTEMS ' Job too big or too small" R.R. 3 Clinton OFFICE Res. SHOP... 482-9926482-9212 erner CONTRACTING LTD. SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY CALL FOR EXPRESSED INTEREST TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONSERVATiON POUCY FOR OLD GROWTH ECQSYBTEMS IN ONTARIO- — — The Ministry of Natural Resources will establish a Policy Advisory Committee to assist in the development of a conservation policy for old growth forest ecosystems in Ontario. The conservation policy will be guided by the Comprehensive Forest Policy Framework. h will be developed: • basad on a review of existing information relative to old growth forest ecosystems and their conservation; • whh Input and recommendations from groups and individuals expressing Interest M the conservation of old growth forest ecosystems; • recommending the collection of new information on biological, social cultural and economic values related to old growth forest ecosystems In the long term; and • through public consultation, using consensus -building techniques, to develop options which will be presented to the Minister of Natural Resources. The Policy Advisory Committee will consist of individuals who have: 1. expressed Interest In Integrated resource management; 2. expertise in biological, soonomlc, social or cultural areas; 3. demonstrated an ability to participate Ma group setting and to work toward a cottt_goal: and 4. approximately fifty days over a period of up to two years to devote to this policy development initiative. Expressions of interest In participating In the Old Growth Ecosystem Policy Advisory Committee will be accepted until September 13,1991. Ministry of Natural Resources Forest Policy Branch 258 Queen Street East Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P8A 5N5 Attention: Old Growth Ecosystems FAX: (705) 875-8145 Please direct telephone inquires: In English to: ((7�0�9� 675-4120 En Francais a: (705) 945-8825 For Crow orOjibway to: ((80 622-9847 The Province of Ontario is dedicated to employment equity and encourages expressions of interest in participating on the Old Growth Policy Advisory Committee by qualified individuals Including: aboriginal peoples, franoophones, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women. Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario