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

October 4, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

DES ROWLAND

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

APPRECIATION OF POLICE

WOODSTOCK GENERAL HOSPITAL

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

AMBULANCE SERVICES

FOOD BANKS

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

CASINO GAMBLING

LABOUR LEGISLATION

HEALTH CARDS

WATER SUPPLY

CASINO GAMBLING

VITAL SERVICES FOR TENANTS

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

CARE OF ALZHEIMER PATIENTS

ONTARIO PLACE

HOUSE SITTINGS

GAMBLING

HEALTH CARE

STABLE FUNDING

HEALTH CARE

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

ONTARIO HYDRO

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I rise today to speak about AIDS Awareness Week. As you may know, this affects thousands in Ontario and millions across the world and has touched, unfortunately, many people in the riding of St George-St David.

I'm wearing this red ribbon today, which is both a memorial to those who have been afflicted by the disease and a symbol of hope that we may one day have a cure. I encourage other members in the House and the public at large to wear this ribbon this week, from October 4 to October 10, to raise the awareness of AIDS and raise the awareness of the need for a cure.

In honour of this week, many community organizations in my riding and in other areas will be holding events. Casey House, in my riding, did on Sunday, and the PWA Foundation Toronto, 519 Community Centre and many other organizations are working towards an awareness of AIDS and a cure and to help the people who have HIV or AIDS.

One of them is the AIDS walk called From All Walks of Life. This is happening on October 17, in a few short days. I encourage members to participate in the walk. If they cannot participate in the walk, I am participating, and I hope the members will at least vicariously participate by pledging their support to me; I'd be glad to accept their support. I look forward to their participation, either monetarily or in actuality.

DES ROWLAND

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On behalf of the residents of Peel region, I want to express our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to Superintendent Des Rowland of the Peel Regional Police Service, who is retiring after a brilliant 38-year career.

Like his ex-colleague, the late Superintendent Bert Collins, Des Rowland is one reason the Peel regional police is one of the finest police forces in Canada. They were both compassionate and understanding gentlemen.

Superintendent Rowland's record of accomplishments is remarkable. During his 31 years with Peel regional police, he has been the officer in charge of communications, homicide, morality, fraud and auto theft. A superb investigator, Des Rowland achieved a 100% arrest rate in the 55 homicide cases he solved.

His retirement will leave a very big void in the force. Those who work with Superintendent Rowland know him as a cop's cop. He always has an open door and an unfailing willingness to help others. He is also a great motivator.

One of the crowing achievements of Des Rowland's career was the Law Enforcement Handbook, which he co-wrote with James Bailey in 1983. The first Canadian police handbook, it is still used in police colleges across North America.

Those of us who have been fortunate enough to know Des Rowland personally can't help marvelling how he has accomplished so much and yet remains so humble. I wish him health, happiness and success as he pursues new challenges in the private sector. I think we have superb police officers in Peel, and I know they will all miss Des Rowland very much.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Two weeks ago I attended a workshop on Georgina Island in my riding. The purpose of this workshop was to develop a local protocol for handling cases of domestic abuse between York regional police, Durham regional police, the Ontario Provincial Police and residents being served by the women's shelter of Georgina.

At the beginning of the workshop, all the participants took

part in the sweetgrass ceremony, a native spiritual ceremony in which we gave our commitment to open communication and understanding.

In 1990, 38% of all Ontario homicide victims were women. They were killed 98% of the time by their male partners. Approximately once every week, somewhere in Ontario another woman dies at the hands of her partner. Police officers frequently are involved in the cases as "domestics" before the event which finally results in the woman's death.

These workshops are an attempt to build up a dialogue and work towards a protocol on action between the women's shelter and the police.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the organizations involved: advocates and board members from the Sandgate women's shelter; the provincial victim assistance training coordinator from the community initiatives unit of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services; York regional, Durham regional and the Ontario Provincial Police; the Georgina police; Georgina legal aid; the native band councillors on the island; probation and parole officers; Yellow Brick House counsellors; native counsellors and native addictions counsellors. I appreciate the contributions they have made.

I am hosting the next one and I look forward to bringing a report to this House at some time in the future.

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I bring to the attention of the House the Grandview survivors. Last Thursday afternoon, the survivors of Grandview held another very moving rally on the steps of this Legislature. One after another, they spoke in truth, often with deep emotion, about the physical, mental, psychological and sexual abuse they suffered at the hands of the staff and officials at Grandview, a place they tell us they thought, and had every reason to believe, would provide them protection and education. Instead, they received pain and hurt.

Many of these young girls were forced to endure long periods of solitary confinement in the "hellhole," where even the most basic of human necessities, as they described them on Thursday, were denied. They were often punished for acts that were in no way criminal. With the help of the survivors support group and independent counselling, some of these young women are now able to articulate their suffering and, yes indeed, their anger that their childhood was stolen.

It's too late for some survivors, for they have already died, but each and every remaining Grandview girl must be given access to compensation, education and therapy, must be given every chance to get her life back in order. These women have a right to have their hurt healed.

APPRECIATION OF POLICE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the bravery and quick thinking of an Ontario Provincial Police constable from the small detachment of Prescott located in my riding of Leeds-Grenville. Constable Rob Hill was on regular patrol August 17 on Highway 401 when he approached a man in a minor car accident. He made the routine request to see the man's driver's licence. Instead, Constable Hill had a loaded .38 calibre revolver jabbed into his ribs.

The gunman looked Constable Hill in the eye, cocked the hammer and said, "Try this on for size." Instinctively, the 15-year veteran knocked the man's gun away with his fist, tripped him to the ground and handcuffed him. Although it sounds like a Chuck Norris movie, this was a real life-and-death drama, and Constable Hill acted bravely, without hesitation, and with the confidence born of years of training and experience.

Nevertheless, he is lucky to be alive today. The constable's gunman is alleged to have stolen a car from his lawyer after breaking parole for a seven-year prison term. He's also wanted for three armed bank robberies.

Rob Hill is an example of the kind of courageous, well-trained men and women who serve on police forces across the province. Constable Hill, on behalf I'm sure of all members of the Legislature, I commend you for your bravery, your dedication and for a job well done.

WOODSTOCK GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the staff and administration of the Woodstock General Hospital for working together to cut costs. Hospital staff proved just how important employee input can be to the success of an organization.

The hospital has translated employee and patient suggestions into significant savings and improved service. During the past 18 months, hospital administrators have implemented almost half of the 460 suggestions submitted to help boost efficiency and effectiveness. These recommendations vary widely, from improved delivery of food and laboratory services to older patients, to a savings of $70,000 over the next five years through the upgrading and modernization of the hospital's computer system.

Earlier this year, the government of Ontario participated in the social contract negotiations to save $2 billion in public spending, to be achieved partially through savings proposals submitted by public servants. In some sectors, employers and administrators balked at the idea of allowing employees' input on day-to-day operations. Perhaps they should take a look at Woodstock General Hospital's positive results.

More than half of the suggestions submitted by employees and patients have actually been implemented. Some were put in place as suggested, some were altered slightly and others are still in the process of being put into effect. It highlights the benefits that stand to be gained from working together as a team, from listening to the front-line workers. In the case of Woodstock General Hospital, they saved money, an important factor in these tough economic times, but just as importantly, they improved their patient health care delivery.

In closing, I would like to congratulate Woodstock General Hospital's staff, patients and administrators for a job well done.

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I rise today to give the House more information about the danger that exists in my riding due to the smuggling of cigarettes.

The Canadian Coast Guard issued a warning to pleasure boat operators in the area, advising people to stay off the water from sunset to sunrise, since: "The situation is considered dangerous. Caution must be exercised."

Unidentified motor boats travelling at high speeds without lights are common, and warning shots from automatic weapons can be heard every night. In addition, the volunteer search and rescue team announced in August that it would no longer carry out night patrols on the river, saying it was too risky.

Last week, the Solicitor General said that the Lancaster detachment of the OPP would remain open 24 hours a day. However, immediately following the announcement in the House, police officers informed me that no new resources or officers had been allocated.

In 1989, the OPP at Lancaster had a total of 27 officers with 15 on the road. Now that smuggling is on the rise, the OPP has 10 fewer officers, with 17 total and 11 on the road.

I urge the Solicitor General to convene a follow-up meeting with community leaders and police forces to announce any decisions the task force has agreed on. Minister, my invitation still stands for us to have a meeting in the Cornwall area so that the community can be safe again.

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the Legislature today to remind all members that the week of October 5 is Waste Reduction Week in Ontario.

As we continually struggle with what to do with the garbage we produce daily, it is important to keep in mind that the first goal should always be to reduce what we are throwing away. To our credit, society has been changing and improving. We are more aware of how our habits affect our community and the future of our children.

During Waste Reduction Week, I also have a good-news story to share with the members of the Legislature: The city of Brampton has just announced that it is expanding its blue box program to include all plastic bottles, jugs and containers, juice boxes, polyester and foam, corrugated cardboard, pizza boxes, magazines, phone books and plastic bags. This is a courageous step at a time when this NDP government has announced it is not funding the blue box program to municipalities to the same degree as past governments. I would like to congratulate the city of Brampton for this move and encourage all residents to take advantage of the expanded services available to them.

Perhaps if this government encouraged involvement in waste reduction programs instead of simply ordering municipalities to do things by legislation and without giving them the needed resources, we could easily achieve the goal of 50% less garbage to landfill sites by the year 2000.

I would encourage all of us to take a look at our offices and homes to ensure that we are part of the solution, that we are taking advantage of all waste reduction programs available to us. If we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem,and we're leaving for our children a problem we created.

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is AIDS Awareness Week across Canada. AIDS Awareness Week is co-sponsored by Health and Welfare Canada, the Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian Public Health Association and the Canadian Hemophilia Society.

The purpose of the week is to raise awareness about AIDS throughout the community and particularly among young people. This year, the theme of AIDS Awareness Week is "strong lives, strong communities." Local AIDS organizations and boards of health across Ontario will be holding a number of special events throughout the week.

I would like to ask all members of the House to demonstrate their support for AIDS awareness by wearing a red ribbon, which has been used for a number of years to symbolize awareness of HIV and AIDS issues. The ribbon also indicates support for those who are living with the disease and serves as a reminder of those who have died.

I hope all members will join with me in this worthwhile recognition and join me for Toronto's fourth annual walk for AIDS to benefit AIDS care, education and research on Sunday, October 17, in my riding.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, it really is difficult to begin question period in the absence of both the Premier and the Deputy Premier, who we understood was to be present for the beginning of question period. Can we determine whether or not he is about to arrive?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I understand the concern of the honourable leader of the official opposition. Can the government House leader be of any assistance here?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): It is my understanding that the Minister of Finance was going to be here, and we're just checking now.

The Speaker: Would the leader wish to stand down her first two questions?

Mrs McLeod: No, Mr Speaker. In the absence of both the Premier and the Deputy Premier, I'll put my first question --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Since we had to inquire about the whereabouts of those ministers, could we start question period again, please, the time?

The Speaker: No problem. Reset the clock, please, at 60 minutes. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to place her question.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Since I would prefer not to have to stand down my question, I will place my second question to the Minister of Health and hope that the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance arrives in time for my second question.

Last Tuesday, the Minister of Health as much as told us here in this House that the government would designate ambulance services as critical functions under the social contract. The minister said, in fact, and we have Hansard to record her statement, that the issue would be resolved very shortly and that the regulations that the government was to bring out would indicate exactly how ambulance operators could implement the social contract.

On Friday, we had the regulations. The government released the regulation which states that it is now up to the employer to decide whether employees should be designated as a critical function. This government has simply washed its hands of the whole issue and this minister has now left ambulance operators holding the financial bag.

If the employers designate their services as critical functions under that social contract the employers are now going to have to pick up the added costs. Minister, it was your government that brought in the whole principle of critical functions to protect emergency services under the social contract, and I ask you: Why has your government now abandoned its responsibilities and left the employers to deal with your mess?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Quite contrary to the premise and the hyperbole of the Leader of the Opposition's question, the regulations under the social contract clearly specify the capacity to identify critical functions. We certainly within the ambulance sector intend, in our ongoing discussions with the operators and the people who provide those services, to work with them to enable them, as I've said from the beginning, to implement the social contract in a way that protects critical functions. That's the intent; that's what we will be doing.

Mrs McLeod: This is too serious an issue to simply play games with. The regulation says, as clearly as the printed word, "if in the opinion of the employer" it is to be a critical function. Minister, there can be only one

interpretation of that by employers across this province, and that is that they are going to be left to pay for the costs that your social contract legislation imposes if they designate their employees as critical functions.

Minister, this is just such a serious situation; I ask you to deal with the realities. Last April, you guaranteed that no health services would suffer as a result of the social contract. In August, you started cutting back the funding to the ambulances. We are already seeing cutbacks in ambulance services. You are surely aware that Metro Toronto's afternoon ambulance service is scheduled to be reduced by 33% to make up for its funding cuts. That means, quite simply, fewer ambulances on the road and slower response times. In the words of their operations director, this is now like a high-wire act with no net.

Minister, you have now created a lose-lose situation. You've cut the funding, and under your regulations there is no guarantee that you are prepared to pick up the costs of critical services. I ask you, what choice do ambulance operators now have except to cut their services? What do you think they should be doing?

Hon Mrs Grier: I hope the member is not implying that ambulance owners and operators do not consider themselves critical functions. Certainly, in the discussions we've had with them over the last two months they have been saying: "We are a critical function. We need a regulation that specifies there can be a critical function and the social contract implemented in that way." That is precisely what we have done.

With respect to the funding, I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition is well aware that we have reallocated $6 million in one-time funding to ambulance service operators to in fact lessen the impact of expenditure reduction targets. That's what we've done to maintain the critical function, and that's the way in which we anticipate the social contract will be worked out between ourselves and the operators as we work through the implications of the regulation.

Mrs McLeod: Listen to what this minister has just said. She said there can be critical services. Of course there can be critical services. Surely there are critical services, and surely you and your government have a responsibility to make sure that those critical services are provided in this province. It is not just ambulance services that are going to be affected, even though my question is directed towards the Minister of Health. Surely you would see that police services are critical services. Surely fire services across this province are critical functions. They are all going to be affected by this completely irresponsible non-decision.

Minister, your responsibility is to ensure that needed health care is available. We are already seeing what's happening to ambulance services. I ask you, what is now going to happen in hospital emergency rooms across the province? What's going to happen in homes for the aged? What's going to happen in intensive care units? What are you now going to do to ensure that people in this province have needed emergency care when they need it?

Hon Mrs Grier: What we have done and what we are doing is acknowledging, recognizing, taking it as a given that within a number of sectors there are critical functions. So under the legislation that imposes the social contract --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- we have passed a regulation that defines "critical functions" in terms of the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Minister of Health take her seat. Minister.

Hon Mrs Grier: I was merely pointing out to the Leader of the Opposition that yes, of course we recognize there are critical functions within a number of sectors under the social contract, and that's precisely why we passed a regulation identifying that and allowing for discussions as to how the impact of the social contract will be absorbed to take place within that context.

Mrs McLeod: This minister could provide the reassurance that's needed simply by saying, "We will accept responsibility for picking up all the added costs of services designated as critical."

FOOD BANKS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will direct my second question on another critical issue to the Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier. You can have a

preamble by looking at the bag which I'm sure is all too familiar to all of us. You will recognize it as the bag which will be distributed in Metropolitan Toronto this week to launch the food drive of the Daily Bread Food Bank.

We can only hope that their food drive is going to be successful this year, because the Daily Bread Food Bank has had the worst summer that it has ever had.

I think all of us had hoped that maybe this would be the year when the numbers of families that use food banks would actually be fewer, when there would be more people working in this province and when there would be fewer families this winter that are going to be facing unemployment and hunger. We had hoped that after three years of recession, things would start to be better, and in fact things are worse. We've talked about the statistics before: 10,000 fewer people working in the province this fall than there were last spring, the fact that we continue to see that 350 jobs have been lost every working day since your government took office.

It is only when Ontario gets back to work that we will see a decline in the use of food banks, and yet there is absolutely nothing in your legislative agenda for this fall, nothing in fact in your three-year plan, that is directed at economic recovery. When the number of people using food banks has risen by 40% in the last three years, I ask you, how can you focus on anything except jobs and economic recovery? What do you have to offer to all these people who are going to be depending on the success of this weekend's food drive just to get through another winter?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, in view of the fact that you allowed the leader of the official opposition to deal with the Minister of Health in her

preamble, I assume that you'll allow me to do the same thing.

I would remind the leader of the official opposition that when her government was in office, the cost of health care in this province, partly when the Conservatives were in office too, increased by an average rate of 11% a year all during the 1980s, and the Ontario drug benefit program increased at an average rate of 18% a year, each year over the previous year.

So if the leader of the official opposition thinks that it's business as usual out there, with unlimited program spending on anything that everybody wants, she is sadly mistaken. That day is long, long gone. This government has had the courage to tackle those very difficult issues while you simply swept them under the rug. That's all you did and that's all you ever intended to do, and when you called the election early, even then you didn't have the courage to bring forth the truth about Ontario's fiscal situation, and those are the facts.

Mrs McLeod: I tried to make this question real to the Treasurer by showing him a bag that's all about a food drive this weekend. The other thing I have in my hand is the government's legislative priorities, and I would suggest that there is absolutely nothing in this list of legislative priorities that offers any hope to the people who are dependent on the success of this weekend's food drive. I say to this minister that we need to keep putting a human face on the unemployment statistics that we know only too well.

There was a report released last week by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, and that report showed that one in three children in this city is now on welfare. That means that over 140,000 children are dependent on social assistance, and in most cases, those children are on welfare simply because their parents cannot find work.

I say to you again that your policies are only making things worse, that your $2-billion tax grab alone means 50,000 fewer jobs than we might otherwise have had. I ask you, when are you going to have the courage to honestly examine why 140,000 children in Metropolitan Toronto are on welfare? When will you admit that it is your policies that have created this absolutely intolerable situation?

Hon Mr Laughren: I can understand the leader of the official opposition trying to turn food banks into a partisan, political issue. I can understand that very well. But I just want to remind the leader of the official opposition that this government is doing more to create jobs than any other jurisdiction in this country, a lot more than the federal government even pretends to be doing.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Let me remind the leader of the official opposition, because I think she forgets from time to time, of exactly what this government is doing. We have set up what we call Jobs Ontario Capital, which over a five-year program is going to create $3.3 billion in strategic capital initiatives. Our base capital spending we've kept up at about $3.2 billion this year. That's creating real jobs, not make-work jobs but real jobs in the economy.

Jobs Ontario Training is a three-year, $1.1-billion program that's going to create 100,000 jobs, and it's going to get a lot of people off social assistance --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- and back into the workforce. What we are doing --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Laughren: Would you stop wasting question period? I was only halfway through the list of our job creation initiatives. I know the opposition doesn't like to hear what the government is doing to create jobs because that takes away a platform for them in question period. I would simply say to them that no government in this country, faced with the kind of recession we've got, is doing what we're doing to create jobs. But I hasten to add that we can't do it all. Reasonable people out there in the province understand that well. The leader of the official opposition doesn't.

Mrs McLeod: If somehow caring about jobs and talking about getting people back to work is something this minister sees as partisan, I wonder what it is he thinks we should be talking about in this place. I'm going to keep talking about people and jobs and children on welfare and I'm going to keep asking this minister and this government to talk about people, instead of reciting lists of programs that are having no effect in getting people back to work at all.

Minister, look at the facts. Unemployment in Metropolitan Toronto has risen to 11.4%, and it was just 5.1% three years ago. That means 106,000 jobs have been lost in Toronto alone over the past three years. That is why more people are using food banks and that is why there are more children on our welfare rolls.

Minister, I ask you again: When will you realize that the way to help these people is to get them working again, when will you admit that your policies are killing jobs and when will you bring forward some policies that will actually help get people in this province back to work?

Hon Mr Laughren: Unlike some politicians out there in the land today, I agree that we should be talking about the level of unemployment, that we should be talking about food banks and that we should be talking about the level of people on social assistance rolls. Those are important issues that are facing us today. I can tell you that no government is more concerned about it than we are and is trying to do as much as we are trying to do.

If the leader of the official opposition is saying, "Throw out these programs, they're not working," if she's saying, "Throw out your base capital program, throw out your Jobs Ontario Capital program, throw out your training program, throw out your homes programs," I'm telling her that it seems as though when we put in place serious job creation programs, the official opposition says: "Throw them out. No matter what they are, no matter how good they are, throw them out. We've got a better idea." The only trouble is their ideas never come forward. They never have any ideas of their own. They simply criticize whatever the government's doing.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. A recent survey found that eight out of ten senior public school students reported having been exposed to acts of violence in school. Last Tuesday, I asked the Premier to comment on these shocking statistics, and quite frankly, I thought and I think that all those who were in the chamber would have found his answer rather flippant. The next day, last Wednesday, a 15-year-old female student was held at knife-point in her classroom in Scarborough.

Minister, you have a very expensive royal commission, an education commission, running around this province whose mandate doesn't even include, anywhere in the mandate, the issue of violence in our schools, violence in the classroom, the increasing incidence we are finding. Can you tell us why not?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, I don't think it would be fair to suggest that the terms of reference for the royal commission exclude any possibility of dealing with this issue during the royal commission hearings. The referral did not specifically list every subject they were to talk about. In fact, I remember questions from the Conservative critic when the terms of reference were released, saying that they were too general and that the commission was going to be allowed to talk about virtually everything in education. So there's nothing that prevents them from doing that.

I want to indicate to the leader of the third party that in the specific case he has referred to, as I hope he is aware, charges have now been laid and we wouldn't want to discuss that specific case. But I can tell you that this morning, when I went into the ministry, I indicated to the ministry that I want correspondence sent to all boards of education today indicating that when there are alleged acts of violence, they are to be treated in a way that the police should be called in immediately.

I want him to also know that, as I have stated before, I don't think the Ministry of Education has been involved enough in setting policy in this area, and we are working on it with boards, police and teachers in order to come up with a much more proactive policy on the part of the provincial government and boards of education.

Mr Harris: This isn't something that has come as a surprise. We've had these statistics growing, increasing, alarming, and former ministers of Education have just sat there and allowed this to go on. Then you set up a royal commission with no mention of violence in the schools.

I do want to talk about the specific case, but not the one before the courts. The aspect that bothered me was that according to the Toronto Sun, "The 15-year-old girl's mother was most angry because the school originally chose to deal with the matter internally," chose to deal with it internally in that specific case.

Minister, you would know that the police have found that more and more of these incidents now involve weapons. There are significantly more violent incidents than there were even last year, and this incident in Scarborough highlights the situation. Have you called for an investigation into why the police were not called immediately, and if not, why not?

Hon Mr Cooke: In fact, yesterday I asked people in the ministry to get on this matter right away, and the information that I have, in contact with the school board and I believe the school, is that the vice-principal took the report from the alleged victim and the alleged victim indicated she did not want the police called until she had a chance to talk to her parents. The parents could not be reached because they were not available and, as a result, the student and the parents --

Mr Harris: Do you find that okay?

Hon Mr Cooke: Let me finish. The student and the parents spoke that night and the school contacted the family that night.

The member asks if I find that to be all right, and I'm going to tell him no. I think that when an incident like this occurs the police should be called in immediately. This is a criminal matter as well as a problem within our school system with violence. In my view and in the view that we are expressing to school boards today in writing, the police should have been called immediately -- that's it.

Mr Harris: I wonder if the minister could explain this to me. The Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario for some number of years now has been telling you the problem is getting worse and worse. They've been telling the ministry; they told the former minister. They have been asking, and have a recommendation before the former minister and you and this government, for mandatory reporting of these incidents for some time.

Can you explain to me why it has taken incidents like this to get your government to move and to insist on mandatory reporting? Could you just confirm this for me: (1) why it took so long, and (2) is what you're telling me today on your ministerial order that there will be mandatory reporting of all incidents in all schools? Are you telling us that today?

Hon Mr Cooke: Several months ago when I was briefed on the secretariat in the ministry that works on violence in the schools, I asked: "What are the statistics? How do we know the level of the problem in our school system?" The answer was: "We don't know. There are not good statistics available."

Mr Harris: So you waited until today.

Hon Mr Cooke: No, that's not the case.

Mr Harris: I'm sorry, not today, Friday.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: It's not quite that easy to just say there's going to be a mandatory reporting mechanism, when we're talking about the criminal justice system as well as the Ministry of Education. I instructed the ministry several months ago to develop a plan whereby we get mandatory reports, whether that's through the police or whether that's through the Ministry of Education.

I fundamentally agree with you that it's going to happen, but it's going to happen properly. I'm expecting a report from the ministry by the end of this month, and that means we should be able to make some announcements in November as to initial steps in this whole area, which I agree with you is very important and we, as the provincial government and the Ministry of Education, have got to show leadership and direction for the school boards. What's happening is not acceptable.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: That one's solved? Go on to the next? All right.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to my friend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Since January, it has been rumoured in the press that the casino bid for Windsor would be awarded to Harrah's. Last year, the head of your casino project team, Domenic Alfieri, visited Harrah's for New Year's Eve, where he was wined and dined. According to press reports, this was the only casino that your head of the casino project ever visited.

Minister, did you approve of this visit on New Year's Eve, and do you not think that all of these incidents, including this one, place the integrity of the entire selection process now in question?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I was aware that Mr Alfieri went to Las Vegas. He went at the expense of the government, at the expense of the project team, and to my knowledge did spend time with other officials from other casinos. There's absolutely no basis in what the leader of the third party is saying about this process somehow being tainted by this visit. The project team has met, over the course of this whole selection process, with many experts in the field, dozens of experts over that process, not with Harrah's but with many. So try to keep this in perspective. Mr Alfieri has already met with dozens of experts throughout the casino industry.

Mr Harris: I'm even more shocked to find out that the taxpayers paid his way on New Year's Eve to Harrah's to visit the casino. Does the auditor know this? You knew this and approved that New Year's Eve was a good time to send the head of your casino project, and that was the only casino he visited?

Secondly, Minister, let me ask you this: The member for Parry Sound suggested that the entire bid process has been tilted in favour of the large casino operators from the outset. He revealed that a briefing provided by one of your chief consultants, Dr Bill Eadington of the University of Nevada, contained three and a half pages of information on Harrah's Casino and less than half a page, and in some cases as little as two lines, on any of the other bidders. That was revealed last week.

Are you aware that in addition to those revelations Dr Eadington, just last year, worked as part of the bid team for Harrah's in another jurisdiction? Were you aware of that when you hired him?

Hon Ms Churley: Let me say to the leader of the third party that nobody in the project team hired this man in any way, shape or form. As I said last Thursday -- and I believe you weren't in the House then, but for your benefit I'll repeat it again -- the project team met with, over the course of the whole selection process, before it actually sat down and started the process, dozens of experts from the casino industry.

Mr Eves didn't point it out on Thursday, and if he had, it might have made a difference. Let me set the record straight here: If he had read directly from the document, he would have seen that it says right on the first page that these were notes from an information meeting that was held with this particular person. These were notes that were taken and, let me repeat again, it was one man's opinion. The selection committee heard from a lot of people and heard a lot of different opinions which it had to sift through.

Mr Harris: From everything that we've learned -- and it comes out in dribs and drabs because you try to keep everything just as closely contained as you can; you refuse to release any of the bids from the unsuccessful bidders -- it would seem the entire selection process stinks. It stinks from the top on down. Last week, a civil servant charged that the best proponent had been rejected for political reasons. Now we learn that some of the consultants you're talking with have worked for the front runner for the Windsor casino.

I would like you to stand in this Legislature today and assure me, assure all of us here, assure the public that you believe that this whole casino selection process is squeaky clean and aboveboard and that there's no reason that you know of, none whatsoever, to stop this process in its tracks today and bring in an independent consultant to give us the straight goods on this. Will you assure us today that you believe it is squeaky clean?

Interjection: Things have changed.

Hon Ms Churley: As some of my colleagues are saying here, things have changed somewhat since this government came into power. I made it very clear last week, and I'll say it for your benefit again today, that I categorically deny that there has been any political interference in this whole process. In fact, I would go further and say that I believe that what the leader of the third party is doing is extremely irresponsible, because he is going on a memo that was leaked by a non-named person, a totally ridiculous memo that in fact has no basis in fact. I would go so far as to say it's an untruth.

There's absolutely no basis in fact in that memo. It's very irresponsible to present that kind of memo as evidence, as though there's something gone wrong with the integrity of this process. It just isn't true. I would ask the leader of the third party to try to be more responsible in those kinds of accusations. I think the people of Windsor and the people of Ontario deserve better than that. This process has received compliments from all over the world and it's been looked at as a model for other jurisdictions to follow. The integrity of the process --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Churley: -- is that it is a non-partisan, independent process that is working very well. I would ask the leader of the third party to be more careful in the information he's presenting.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'm sorry to disturb the Minister of Labour, but I have a question for him. Minister, I understand that you'll be introducing Bill 80 for second reading in the Legislature this afternoon. This is a bill that represents an unprecedented intervention into the affairs of Ontario's construction unions. Prior to Bill 80, if a union wanted to change its constitution and the majority of its members voted for that change, then the rules were simply changed. After Bill 80, government bureaucrats will be able to dictate to the union how it runs its operations. That's what Bill 80 will do.

When this minister came to power, people in the construction unions thought that they would have a friend in office. They're now realizing that they indeed have an enemy. Minister, instead of getting more work for construction workers, you tinker with labour laws once again. With such strong union opposition to Bill 80, why are you pushing ahead with this ill-advised legislation?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I find it interesting, and there are some good, solid answers to the question that's been put by the member across the way. But I ask him why it was that his own leader, the previous Premier of this province, brought in a bill almost identical to this and then wouldn't proceed with it. You talk from across the floor about guts. I think we've got the guts to carry through on what is a progressive piece of legislation.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): You have no courage over there.

Mr Mahoney: I guess you rehearsed that, did you, over the weekend? You were all set. That's terrific. But let me tell you something: Don't talk to me about why it didn't go through. Talk to the people in the construction industry, talk to the unions, Mr Treasurer. They're the ones. Talk to the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. This is nonsense and you know it. You're not listening to the very people whom you purport to represent.

Bill 80 has opened up a real can of worms within the construction trades. Ontario locals and their international leadership are upset with each other and particularly with the government. The workers are caught in the middle. If bad blood develops between the unions, it will be the Ontario workers who will wind up paying the price. In an industry where unemployment is far above the provincial average, labour unrest is something the workers can ill afford.

There's a way out of these troubles, Mr Minister. We would ask you to set up a committee made up of both groups of unions, the Ontario locals and their international parents, and the government. See whether the problems that may exist, which you won't even tell us about, within the construction unions can be solved to everyone's satisfaction. This way, instead of dictating a solution that no one finds acceptable, you can negotiate a solution that everyone can support.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Mahoney: As a way of stopping rising unrest in the construction unions surrounding Bill 80, will you withdraw the bill and will you set up a committee comprised of labour unions and the government to identify and resolve outstanding problems --

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: -- within the construction trade and within those unions? Will you consult with the members of the construction unions in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm wondering, Mr Speaker, if you could ask the member across the way to repeat the several questions he asked, because I couldn't hear them for all the shouting over there.

Mr Mahoney: Will you consult with the members of the construction unions? That was the question.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't know of a piece of legislation other than Bill 40, I guess, on which we have done more consulting over the last several months. We've heard the arguments, we've heard arguments on both sides, and we are making some amendments that deal with some of the arguments that have been raised.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, Ontario's health card system has been plagued by fraud since its introduction by the Liberal government in 1990. The red-and-white health cards were issued in an election year and in a hurried fashion, with no regard for whether the people who were actually entitled to publicly funded health care were the only ones receiving the cards.

Members of the Liberal caucus have repeatedly stated that their previous government was committed to establishing verification measures to guard against health card fraud. Minister, I ask you, upon your government coming to office was there any evidence that the former Liberal government had planned to put in place verification measures to limit the fraud in its badly flawed health card system?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me merely point out to the member that the previous government had been committed to a balanced budget and no deficit and a number of other things which, on becoming government, we found no longer existed.

What I can say to him in terms of the registration of individuals in this province for health cards is that registration began under the previous government in April 1990, to be completed in January 1991. After we became the government in October 1990, we engaged a consultant firm to conduct a post-implementation audit and develop reporting requirements for management of the database; that was completed in April 1991. Then in April 1991 we set up a unit responsible for registration identification. That was expanded, in May 1992, into the registration programs branch.

When I became the minister, I prevailed upon my good friend the Minister of Environment and Energy to second to the Ministry of Health an investigator from MOEE's enforcement and investigations branch. They have now set up an investigative unit. We have put in place forensic accountants, as well as a toll-free hotline. The actions that have been taken to deal with misuse of our health cards have all been subsequent to October 1990.

Mr Jim Wilson: I appreciate the minister's response. I want to be specific, because in order to solve the problems with the health card system, it's important that we accurately determine why hundreds of millions of dollars are being stolen from taxpayers' pockets. Last August, while being scrummed by members of the press gallery, the Liberal member for York Centre alleged that the NDP's first budget eliminated several health card enforcement measures which were proposed by the former Liberal government. Minister, concerned taxpayers would like to know what specific Liberal enforcement measures were wiped out by your government's budget in 1991.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am not aware of any measures that were wiped out by our budget in 1991. As I indicated in my response to the first question, our government has taken a significant number of steps in order to ensure proper verification, registration and enforcement of the rules with respect to health cards.

WATER SUPPLY

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Environment and Energy. As the minister is well aware, there is a Russian roulette system going on in my county: the town of Dresden and surrounding areas have been faced with strict water limitations. Your ministry has been working with our community to find a solution. When can the residents expect fresh pipeline water approval for their drinking?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I appreciate the question from my colleague on behalf of his constituents. As he will know, proposals were in the works that would involve a number of municipalities, including the town of Wallaceburg, and subsequently Wallaceburg withdrew from the scheme. The ministry subsequently has completed a feasibility study which reviewed alternatives for the town of Dresden and the townships of Sombra, Chatham and Camden.

There are three basic alternatives for water supply that have been identified and we are currently in the process of preparing a submission which will be sent to Management Board of Cabinet. As soon as that process is completed, we will be able to report back to the member and to his municipalities on which alternative we will be proceeding with.

Mr Hope: On Friday I met with the area communities and talked about the water issue. Will the introduction of the Ontario Clean Water Agency adversely affect the speed at which this critical, important project is put in place?

Hon Mr Wildman: The short answer is no. Senior staff are very aware of the urgency of this project and intend to closely track its progress and ensure it proceeds without delay for the member and his constituents.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I too have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Earlier this year, I questioned you very directly about the integrity of the process with respect to the selection of the interim site. You stood in your place and said that that was not an issue because it had been handled in an appropriate and clean fashion. You didn't seem to understand at that point that it was not necessarily specifically what you did but the mismanagement of making the selection before the bids were even opened on the interim process.

At that point, I said to you that the integrity of the whole process was in question and that you had lost credibility with respect to the nine proponents. How could they trust or have any confidence in you as minister, who had made a clearly political decision with respect to the interim casino? Whether it was the right decision is really irrelevant, because you interfered with it at the political level and called into question the whole process at that point in time. You've heard questions today from the leader of the third party on that very issue.

I want to talk about another issue of integrity. That's the issue of integrity with respect to what your party stood for and said before you were elected. I want to refer to the minutes that have now become somewhat infamous over the past number of hours.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mr McClelland: "Dr Eadington responded that there is no problem making money, but we will not be able to compete for high rollers. Casinos make money by targeting lower socioeconomic groups, where players lose $10 to $20 per individual. The strip casinos in Las Vegas" --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr McClelland: -- "target the middle class, but there are downtown casinos that cater to working-class, budget-oriented players. The ability to market needs by casino companies is quite astounding."

Why have you abandoned your principles that you held before and basically said, "We're going after the lower social class economic market and we're going to go after their $10 and $20," to make your dollars go into the Treasurer's pocket?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, let me make a comment on the member's first statement before he got to his question. Let's go back for a moment to the discussion we had in this House around the selection of the site for the interim casino. You'll recall that I said at that time that we made an agreement with the city of Windsor that we would always allow the city to have a major say in the location for the casino. We made that very clear to the city and we made it very clear to this House. In fact, that is what happened.

I also, if you will recall, said at that time that the selection of the operator is a very, very different process from that site selection. That is why I was determined at the very beginning to set up a very non-political independent selection committee, in this case of five very well-respected deputy ministers whose integrity I don't question at all.

Having said that, in response to your second comment and question, the document to which he is referring -- he had a very long question with a lot of comments -- he wasn't in the House on Thursday, but let me say quickly that that document was notes from a breakfast meeting which the selection committee and the review panel attended well before the actual selection process started. It was one of many, many people's advice. They took the good and the bad and the ugly. It was their responsibility to get information and sift through it --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Churley: -- and use what they needed.

Mr McClelland: All I want to say to you is that this whole process has indeed been bad and has been ugly right from day one. The issue here, what you don't seem to understand, is that you can't selectively choose the things that fit your prescribed program and the things that don't. If you're telling me, as you said to the leader of the third party, that this was a totally irrelevant document, you then have to suggest that the whole series of meetings -- and you pick and choose which ones were relevant and which ones weren't. That is absolutely absurd.

The question I want to ask too is, if the city had such a major say in the location of the casino, why was it effectively ignored in terms of the operator? Don't stand in your place and tell me that you listened to them, because person for person, the people from the city of Windsor will say that you effectively ignored them when it came to the selection of the operator. I come back to my question: You ignored the city of Windsor and you ignored the fundamental premise of your government and your position prior to election.

That was that you would not be going after working-class people and going after their dollars. Now we know from this document exactly what was indicated by members of your caucus --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question.

Mr McClelland: -- that you have targeted the working-class people to draw dollars. You are effectively putting a tax on the poor. That is your marketing strategy and you've done that by ignoring the people of the city of Windsor and their advice and their wishes.

Hon Ms Churley: The member opposite seems to want it both ways. In his first question, he said to me, "Gee, you listened to the city of Windsor too much in the site selection." Now in his second question he's saying, "You're not listening enough to them."

Let me say again that city of Windsor officials have been very involved in this process from day one. In fact, we did listen to them very closely on the site selection. We think it is important to the people of Windsor that they had a big say in that. We said: "The province owns the casino. We'll set the rules and regulations for the casino. It will be our casino. We will have an operator who will run it on our terms, and we have a very rigorous and tough set of criteria developed by this government and the selection panel."

We made it clear to Windsor that it will not have direct input into the selection process, as I will not. I have no access to the selection process, because we want to keep it non-political.

Let me say to the member that the selection committee very recently went to Windsor with the short list of proponents, who did in fact brief the city council and officials on some of their proposals.

VITAL SERVICES FOR TENANTS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. My constituents at 1002 Lawrence Avenue East have been having intolerable living conditions since the fall of last year. This weekend, they took to the streets in protest.

On June 20, I spoke to the Minister of Housing both in this House and also in committee to encourage the minister to bring forward legislation which would allow for vital services bills to be passed in all of the municipalities of this province, similar to the London bill.

I wrote to you, Minister, on August 12, encouraging you to do this, and also to the Minister of Housing and to the Attorney General as well as the mayor of North York. To date, I have received no answer from you as to what you intend to do. Will you tell me now what you intend to do to help my constituents?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I appreciate a Tory who is actually standing up for tenants. This is the first time since Bill Davis brought in rent control that a Tory has ever done that and not been exclusively on the side of the landlords.

I'll certainly meet with the Minister of Housing and discuss this matter with her.

Mr Turnbull: All I heard in that tirade was how bad Tories were. I would remind the minister that the Tories were the people who originally brought in rent control. But I didn't hear the end of the minister's statement, so could he perhaps repeat what he is going to do. That is not my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member just take his seat for a moment. The member for York Mills with his supplementary, please.

Mr Turnbull: As I've said, I couldn't hear what the minister said by way of answer, if indeed he gave an answer.

I have prepared a private member's bill along the lines of the London bill which we enacted this year. Clearly, I can bring this in as a private member's bill, and in fact, on November 4 my ballot item comes up and we can debate it. In the meantime, my tenants are going cold. I would ask the minister, would you be prepared to take over my bill and bring it in immediately so that North York can pass a vital services bylaw so that my tenants can be protected this week?

Hon Mr Philip: If we hear from North York, if North York would like to meet with us and discuss any legislation which it feels would be helpful, we'd be happy to do that. We're happy to do that with any municipality and in fact we do it on a regular basis.

With regard to the member's

preamble to his supplementary, I couldn't quite hear what he was saying because of the noise of his colleagues, but I'm sure that I'll read it. But I did hear him say something: that I hadn't credited the Conservative Party with having brought in rent control. In fact, that was part of my answer, that I said the last progressive thing the Tories had ever stood for in terms of tenants' rights was when they brought in rent control. I might also remind him that the position of the Conservative Party more recently has been to abolish rent control.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of industry, trade and technology. Recently, as you know, minister, you made an announcement about Quebec construction workers. The people in my riding, probably as most other people around the Quebec-Ontario border, were very much in support of the position the government took. I too believe the approach we have to take is to find a way to get Quebec to remove its restrictions so we can gain access to its markets the same way it can ours.

But we still have some problems, as you are well aware; namely, in northeastern Ontario, in places like Cochrane South and Cochrane North and Timiskaming, we have a huge problem when it comes to the logging industry. As you'd be aware, there are a number of Quebec contractors operating within the logging industry in that particular part of the province, which is really putting our Ontario contractors in jeopardy, not even to speak about the problems that we're having in transportation.

My question to you, Madam Minister, is simply this: How will your announcement of last week affect those particular industries that are still affected by interprovincial trade barriers in the province of Ontario?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I thank the member for the question. I think he raises an important issue.

Certainly, logging in northeastern Ontario and the issue of trucking are two other issues which are of immediate and important concern to a large number of Ontarians with respect to Quebec's trade barriers. Those aren't the only issues. There are other issues that we have in dispute with Quebec, and in a number of areas we have to continue negotiations.

The announcement made on Monday was specifically with respect to the construction sector and municipal bus procurement. We moved from an area of multilateral negotiations on a whole wide range of issues. Those negotiations continue -- logging and trucking are part of those negotiations -- but we moved from there again to a bilateral table on the issue of construction and municipal bus. At that bilateral table and those bilateral negotiations we were unable to make significant progress and, as I have announced, we are now taking further steps.

I hope the effect will be to wake Quebec up that we are serious with respect to these issues. We are taking specific retaliatory action in this narrow area. The area of logging and trucking will continue to be under discussion and negotiation at the multilateral tables.

Mr Bisson: To be specific, Madam Minister, I'd like to point to a bit of a timetable here. When could the people of Kirkland Lake and Matheson and Iroquois Falls and Cochrane and Kapuskasing and Hearst expect to see some action on these particular issues?

Hon Ms Lankin: The timetable that has been set out and has been agreed to by all of the ministers with respect to the multilateral negotiations has us continuing to negotiate over the course of this winter and hopefully to have reached final conclusion on a whole range of issues by June 1994.

I think it's important to say at this point in time that we have taken action to move certain issues to a bilateral table because we hoped we could make more expeditious progress. That hasn't turned out to be the case and we've had to take the next step, which is retaliatory action.

I agree with the member's statement that our overall goal is to bring down trade barriers. We will continue in the spirit of negotiations at the multilateral table to do that, but I say that if progress is not made in these areas and a number of other areas, Ontario will have to continue to be tough with Quebec, and that may mean moving on issues such as logging and trucking as well.

CARE OF ALZHEIMER PATIENTS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Health. In the Niagara region, and I'm sure this could be said in much of the province of Ontario, those who care for Alzheimer patients are in rather dire straits. They are beside themselves because it is extremely difficult, particularly in the advanced stages of Alzheimer patients, to deal with these people within their homes, and they face long lists to have the people looked after within a specialized nursing home setting.

I ask the Minister of Health, when can the people of the Niagara Peninsula expect that there is going to be adequate and good health care service for Alzheimer patients by providing a sufficient number of beds within nursing homes to serve those people who are so difficult for their own families to serve?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm well aware of the very special needs of people suffering from Alzheimer disease and the fact that sometimes the accommodation that is generally available in nursing homes is not in fact secure enough or sufficient.

Let me say to the member with respect to those people who are having difficulty looking after relatives at home that one of the elements of the long-term care program and reform that I'm particularly pleased about is the fact that there will be some respite care available so that people who are looking after relatives at home may be able to find some short-term relief on occasion.

With respect to the larger issue and the specific situation in the Niagara region, I'm not in a position to comment on the details, but let me say to the member that I will find out what the situation is with respect to beds for Alzheimer patients in that region and get back to him as soon as I can.

Mr Bradley: The Treasurer was making some reference, with some pride, to the amount of money the present government is devoting to health care in this province. We're now beginning to see some of the results of what the Treasurer was talking about in terms of long lineups for those beds for Alzheimer patients.

In addition to that, I ask the minister, in view of the fact that she appears to offer very little hope for those who are looking for that kind of accommodation within a nursing home setting, would the minister reveal to the House why it is that funding for the respite care to which she makes reference is frozen at a time when the list of those needing the respite care is expanding?

Hon Mrs Grier: There's a lot in that

preamble, but let me say to the member that in my response to his first question, I referred to our reform of the long-term care system, our creation of a long-term care system at the same time as we reform, and to the Treasurer and the rest of the government's generosity in increasing the funds available for long-term care. So contrary to his assumption and assertion, in fact there is more funding going into long-term care now and into the entire continuum of it than ever before, and there will be more over the next four or five years.

With respect to waiting lists for patients suffering from Alzheimer's, let me point out to him that this is not a particularly new situation, that there have always been waiting lists for those. I mentioned in my first answer that these were the kinds of patients for whom it was particularly difficult sometimes to find the most appropriate --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and sometimes the kind of care that does in fact have security, because people with Alzheimer's are, on occasion, inclined to wander and need some special provisions and some special care.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Grier: His question focused on the issue of respite care, and I can say to him that yes, it's the first time that there has been funding for respite care, so that is not a cutback; that is a new initiative of our government and one in which I think both his constituents and others --

The Speaker: The question's been answered. The minister will take her seat. The member for Etobicoke West.

ONTARIO PLACE

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I would like to compliment you on your fine work today, Mr Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. I have had, in very recent weeks, some visits from some concerned people regarding the negotiated deal you've made at Ontario Place. Concerns have been brought forward about the fact that you've negotiated a secret deal that has not been publicly tendered, that has been negotiated with one party privately, and in fact the terms and settlement and agreement have not been made public.

The people who've approached me have suggested they would have been very interested in having an opportunity to bid on this particular contractual agreement that you let to MCA and Molson.

My question is twofold:

(1) Why was this secretly done and why were there no tender documents put out and why is it that you just had one party you negotiated the settlement with?

(2) Why is this contract not open for the public to digest, and how come everything around this has been shrouded in secrecy and no one can know the deal, not just these people but the owners and operators at Ontario Place, the restaurateurs? Many people are concerned about this and they haven't got one single answer from your ministry.

Can you respond to these charges that it's been secretive, behind closed doors and untendered, that possibly a rather sweetheart deal has been cut with people and that there has not been an opportunity for public debate?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): There's absolutely nothing secret about this deal. It went through an entirely open process in 1991. In fact, this is the deal that was announced by Peter North, and I believe it was in 1991, and if not, in early 1992, but I'm pretty sure it was in 1991. The process was done entirely openly.

I think the member of the third party should do his homework. It all happened two years ago. It's an entirely open process that had gone on long before I came into office. All I've been responsible for is to try and help see it through properly to its completion.

The final negotiated terms of this agreement are not absolutely final or you would hear more about it publicly. As soon as they are, I'll be happy to release the final terms because in fact they'll show that the people who stand to gain by this deal are the taxpayers of Ontario.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that when the House adjourns on Thursday, October 21, 1993, it stand adjourned until 1:30 pm on Tuesday, October 26, 1993.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it says:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted with the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling;

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by operations of various gaming and gambling ventures;

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor;

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling;

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in this province."

That's signed by 10 constituents of my riding. I've also signed the petition.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition that says:

"We, the undersigned, believe that the health expenditure control plan and its proposals concerning physicians' services will result in the decrease in the quality and availability of primary health care and ultimately threaten the integrity of the health care delivery system in Ontario.

"We strongly urge you to reconsider these measures and seek alternative just and equitable solutions to the problems facing health care and government deficits."

That's got signatures, approximately 149 names, from Orillia, Coldwater, Washago, Hawkstone, Sebright, Cumberland Beach, Bracebridge, Fruitland, central Ontario.

STABLE FUNDING

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by 883 people and also another 302 in a ballot form. The signatures were gathered at the international plowing match. It says:

"I demand that you withdraw Bill 42, commonly known as the stable funding act, and allow farmers the choice of whether they wish to join a general farm organization or not."

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

I will sign the petition.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My petition today is to the Legislature of Ontario. It comes from some taxpayers in my riding at St Gregory school and it goes like this:

"Whereas the voters and taxpayers of the St Gregory school community have been requesting funds for a much-needed renovation and expansion of the present facility for 11 years; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board has placed St Gregory school as number one on its list of priorities on the capital expenditure forecast list;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to allocate capital funds to the restoration and improvement of the St Gregory school."

Thousands of people have signed this petition in my riding and I will sign this and submit this.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas in a memo dated September 27, 1993, received by the township of Uxbridge, Ontario Hydro announced two hastily chosen sites identified as D1 and D2 and had selected candidate sites for dual-purpose transformer stations in the township of Uxbridge; and

"Whereas the candidate sites are contrary to the planning and environmental principles which have been used in the selection of other candidate sites by Ontario Hydro for this transformer station and further transformer stations which Ontario Hydro has chosen and established elsewhere in the province; and

"Whereas the candidate sites are comprised of number 1 and 2 agricultural soils and viable long-established agricultural operations:

"Therefore, that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario hereby advise Ontario Hydro that it objects in the strongest possible terms to the identification of sites D1 and D2 and for technical and financial reasons request that Ontario Hydro remove these two sites from further consideration and that the council of the township of Uxbridge further request that Ontario Hydro do not abandon the long-established criteria used in the selection of other candidate sites elsewhere in the township and in the province of Ontario."

I have received this petition in the form of a resolution from the township of the council of Uxbridge and I affix my name.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I've been presenting these petitions since July concerning the federal government's disbursement of land in North Pickering.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government sale plan;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

I affix my signature and hope that the federal government will now finally listen.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a very similar petition to my colleague's here.

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

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government sale plan;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"Therefore, that the provincial government request that the federal government do initiate a public review panel of the federal Minister of the Environment to ensure an organized disposal of these lands protecting these rural resources and the community of residents there."

I have affixed my name and request that maybe they'll open up their public information offices again.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1923 seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that native peoples could fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas that treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae is not enforcing existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's environment;

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation to respect our native and non-native ancestors and to respect the Williams Treaty."

This is signed by 542 constituents, and I also affix my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mr Mackenzie moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 80,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 80, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations de travail.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I confess that I've tried to find the

section in our standing orders; I know it's here, but I haven't had time to find it. It has to do with us receiving a package of amendments on the bill.

I'm quite concerned. I was prepared to do the leadoff remarks as the Labour critic on Bill 80. I've had numerous meetings; I've met with my staff and we've outlined all of the concerns. I have now received, not 10 minutes ago, five pages of amendments to this bill. I don't know what happened. Someone tells me it was somehow sent to a mail room or something -- I don't know -- but neither the critic for the third party nor myself nor, obviously, any members of our staff have been made privy to these amendments.

We've been asking for these amendments. There have been rumours about them. How am I expected to look through bureaucratese in a matter of moments while the minister -- well, you can shake your head, but I don't know what all of these amendments mean. I would be making my opening remarks, as would the critic for the third party, without being privy to all of the information.

I believe that as critics we have the responsibility to speak to all of the issues in a particular bill, and the minister, the ministry, somebody in the government, has an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that we are given ample time to study any amendments and that we're given this information well in advance. We have not been.

I think we're in some jeopardy to speak to the whole intent of Bill 80 today. I regret that. I was quite ready to go, but I don't know how I can go on a bill when my comments could be running alongside of an amendment that makes my comments either irrelevant or wrong. I would be concerned about that.

I would ask for some help. I don't know if the government House leader or the minister has a suggestion. Possibly we could do some other business today and move to Bill 80 tomorrow, which would require some other adjustments, but I'm sure the critic for the third party shares my concern, and I think it's a very serious problem.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I hear the comments of my colleague and his point of order and take them seriously. Having said that, there are three things that we need to understand here today.

First, the only thing that's on the floor for debate today is Bill 80, as printed. This is a second reading debate, a debate in principle on the legislation. The amendments that the Minister of Labour has prepared are amendments that have been prepared as a result of a consultation. Those amendments at some point, when we finish second reading and the bill is in committee, will be introduced in that committee. The members opposite in fact only have those amendments out of the minister's courtesy to them at this point.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): That's what the bill is going to say. That's positively nonsense.

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, the members opposite may think it's nonsense, but the Minister of Labour has provided them with the amendments as a courtesy. They are not on the floor at this point.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): On the same point of order?

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Yes, Mr Speaker. I am absolutely appalled that we received this proposed revision to Bill 80 not more than 10 minutes ago, and only then because we had heard via the rumour mill that there were going to be revisions to the bill. I am surprised and I am very disappointed that the Minister of Labour and his staff have not consulted with myself, the Labour critic for the third party, or with the Labour critic for the opposition.

We did not know about these amendments. We are not prepared to discuss them today. This is the way the entire piece of legislation has been dealt with: There has not been consultation with all sides involved. This is a very difficult and contentious piece of legislation. It's very technical. There are some legal ramifications. You should have given us that information before today and made us aware of it. Personally, I would like to move that the debate on Bill 80 conclude as of now.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, on the same point of order and a couple of issues that directly impact on your decision: You've read the standing orders, and they've been dealt with on a number of occasions in the past, with respect to the ruling that the member for Mississauga West is asking you to make. He's asking you to rule on whether or not the material was in hand at the appropriate time so that we may debate this as we were expecting to today.

Might I add that during the last session in this place the Minister of Transportation introduced two separate pieces of legislation in the same week. During the introduction of those pieces of legislation, our information was supposed to be received previous to the discussions taking place, in fact even previous to the member introducing the bill.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, on both those occasions none of the proper material was in hand by the critics in the opposition parties previous to the bill being debated or introduced. On those occasions we got a firm commitment after the House leader suggested that in fact the documentation was delivered to the critics' offices, which was proven to be absolutely wrong, and we went ahead with the debate.

They didn't even give the information properly before this House to the opposition parties twice in the same week. Again, the House leader suggested that he had delivered them to the critics' offices, and that did not happen. What took place was that we were being asked to vote on first reading of a bill without ever seeing the legislation. We were asked to do that without ever seeing the legislation or knowing at all what we were voting on.

It's becoming quite apparent to me, and I think others in this House, that the government is flouting the rules of debate in this place. They're not giving proper information, they're not giving proper lead time and they're passing it off on technical terms by suggesting, as the House leader suggests, that: "These are just there at our pleasure. We don't even have to deliver these. We're just giving them to you as a courtesy."

How can we in opposition, according to the Minister of Transportation's two errors and now the Minister of Labour's, be expected to function in this place and properly debate issues before us when the information is given to us but 10 minutes before the debate takes place? I say to you, Mr Speaker, if this minister is going to introduce these amendments to this House, we in opposition deserve certainly more than 10 minutes to digest the wide range and broad review of amendments to this piece of legislation. As Speaker, you must rein this government in on information supplied to the opposition so that we are allowed to debate these freely and coherently, with all the proper information.

Finally, if you don't allow us the opportunity, like the two times the Minister of Transportation completely messed up and now the Minister of Labour has messed up, you leave us no alternative but to sit idly by as the government proposes amendment after amendment, because not only have we not had the time but our researchers haven't had the time to review it, nor have the parties out there and the great public had an opportunity to read it. That is flouting the rules and taking a broad swipe against the democratic process.

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat, please. I've entertained enough points of order on that issue. I think you made your point very clearly, all of you, and I was very patient. This is a debate on second reading. First thing, how can you produce amendments on a debate that you did not even hear? Second thing, it is not out of order. This point is not out of order.

Orders of the day.

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On page 32 of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, 37(

c) says that, and I'll just read this: "On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics. If it is an amending bill, an up-to-date consolidation of the act or acts to be amended shall be delivered to the opposition critics unless the bill amends

an act amended previously in the session."

We have not, in this session, previously amended this, so that would eliminate that. If what you're saying is, sir, that we cannot debate these amendments, then perhaps the minister should withdraw the amendments. He's tabled the amendments with us, not given us time. The House leader has said that this is a debate in principle.

Mr Speaker, I ask for your guidance here. I always thought that the debate in principle basically took place on first reading when a bill was introduced and that's why there's no debate because it's simply the principle of the bill, and yet there are precedents where there have been debates -- the House leader knows that -- on first readings in the last session of this Legislature.

Now you've introduced amendments. If I just take a look, just as an example, "Jurisdiction of the local trade union." This is a big issue in this particular bill, and this says, subsection 138.3(1), "A parent trade union shall not alter the jurisdiction of a local trade union, whether established under a constitution or otherwise, as the jurisdiction existed on the first day of May, 1992, unless the local trade union consents to the alteration." And it goes on about ignoring the --

The Deputy Speaker: Please.

Mr Mahoney: I only use this to point out, if I might, to wrap up, this is very --

The Deputy Speaker: No, no. Honestly. Please take your seat.

Mr Mahoney: -- information that requires a proper opportunity to study and analyse.

The Deputy Speaker: No, no. Please take your seat. I've heard enough. This is a debate of second reading. Minister.

Mr Stockwell: No, Mr Speaker, a point of order: I'd asked you to rule on the question --

The Deputy Speaker: I just ruled. Please take your seat and don't argue with the Chair, please. I have made my ruling that there is no point of debating further. I'm now asking the minister to debate second reading.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: On a new point of order?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, I didn't hear your ruling. Give us your ruling. I don't think anyone heard your ruling on this side. If you can give me the reasoning --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Please, please. I ruled that there was no point of order. I will now ask the minister to take the floor.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Last --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: On a new point of order, the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I wish to ask you: I heard you make a ruling on the first point of order raised. There was a second point of order raised by the member for Mississauga West, and I would like to hear your ruling on that.

The Deputy Speaker: I thought I was explicit enough. It's the same ruling. There is no point of order.

Mr Stockwell: But it says they have to deliver --

The Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order. I have ruled that there is no point of order and I will ask the minister to take the floor, please.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Mississauga West. Minister.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Last year, I introduced a bill to promote greater democracy, freedom and local control in the relationships between internationally based parent unions in the construction industry and their Ontario-based --

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Bruce. The member for Bruce has a point of order.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I was in my office doing some other things and heard all of this confusion. I just want to make clear, Mr Speaker, on a point of order, that the Minister of Labour will not be allowed to speak to anything, then, but the actual text of what is on second reading, that he will be declared out of order if he raises one item that he expects to change in the revision proposals, which he just dropped on to our desks today.

Mr Speaker, I ask that he be kept to the actual text of the bill as it was introduced and that he be asked to take his seat if he raises any other issue.

The Deputy Speaker: I agree totally, but the ruling will not only apply to the government, but to everyone.

Mr Elston: Exactly.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Last year I introduced a bill to promote greater democracy, freedom and local control in the relationships between internationally based parent unions in the construction industry and their Ontariobased locals. These proposals are now known as Bill 80.

Ontario-based construction locals have long expressed a desire for greater control over their own affairs. They often have little input into major questions facing their members on everything from collective bargaining rights to the administration and use of benefit funds to which they have contributed. These circumstances have developed over time and can be traced to the unique nature and history of trade union organization by craft in the North American construction sector.

On introduction, Bill 80 was received positively in many quarters. I said at the time, however, and you'll note in my previous comments, that consultations among business and labour would continue, that it seemed likely that the bill would undergo further changes and improvements as it moved through the House.

Since that time, the international union community has raised concerns about two of our proposals. These are proposals to allow local unions to disaffiliate from their international parents, also known as successorship, and to impose an absolute prohibition on parental alteration of local jurisdictions.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. A point of order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, the minister is speaking about the amendments.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As promised, we have consulted widely on these and other issues arising from first reading of the bill. It is clear from these consultations that certain amendments would be appropriate. To that end, I'm announcing today that the government is proposing to remove the successorship provisions. We also intend to modify the absolute prohibition of parental jurisdiction alteration.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. A point of order. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, you made the ruling that he cannot speak to the amendments. He is clearly speaking to the amendments there.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: They're not. They're not the amendments.

The Deputy Speaker: Please, please. He is not speaking on amendments whatsoever. He is not speaking on amendments.

Mr Stockwell: The proposed amendments?

The Deputy Speaker: He is speaking on second reading of an amendment to the Labour Relations Act. Please, Minister.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Our proposals would permit such alteration, but only after a prior application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board has found just cause.

Bill 80 is now ready for second reading. It remains a strong and progressive package of proposals. It guarantees to Ontario construction locals shared bargaining rights in the non-industrial, commercial, institutional sectors, a right currently enjoyed in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector; much greater control over the resolution of jurisdictional disputes within their trades; greater protection from interference or reprisals from their parents; and proportionate control over their benefit plans.

We expect that after receiving second reading later today, Bill 80 will undergo further review at the committee stage. Our ultimate goal is to enact a law that brings a sense of balance and fairness to the relationship between local unions, their members and their international parents.

I think in closing I would simply say that we passed the likely amendments over at the request of the opposition parties, and I really wonder why we even tried to do that.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments. Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Mississauga West.

Interjection: We've got Steve for an hour and a half.

Mr Mahoney: Yes, you've got Steve for an hour and a half. So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I understand that a pipe burst in the ministry. That's why they couldn't get the information. A pipe burst somewhere in the ministry, so they couldn't get us this. I wonder whose head the pipe was in when it burst.

But what the minister has effectively done -- I mean, it's really fascinating -- is introduce a piece of legislation that many people are very, very concerned about; tries to pretend, whether it's in supposed answers in question period or his opening remarks, that the government's gone through some mysterious process of consultation with all of the affected people. I don't understand. I guess I'm a little thick-headed on this. When I have people who call me --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Well, you might agree with that. These are the people who are opposed, whom you say you're trying to protect. Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95; they actually voted against the bill. You don't want to listen to them. I don't understand that. You're supposed to be the Minister of Labour. Does that mean all labour or just the CLC? Does that mean every local in the construction industry or does it just mean Bob White? I don't understand that.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Nothing to do with it.

Mr Mahoney: Minister of -- well, maybe he does. It's curious that all of these unions, these locals, are not affiliated with the CLC, but rather their national affiliation is with the Canadian Federation of Labour, a little smaller organization with a little less clout than Mr White, unable to get Jesse Jackson to come out to get their picture on the front page of the Globe and Mail. And maybe -- just maybe, I don't know -- this may be a hidden agenda; awfully well hidden, I'll admit, but I don't know. I can't find out what other reasons this Minister of Labour would have for ignoring these people.

The Millwright District Council of Ontario; it doesn't count in NDP Ontario? The Labourer's International Union of North America. Now, in fairness, this actually is the most upsetting part of this whole bill. We had brothers and sisters against brothers and sisters here over this bill and I've yet to hear a simple answer to the question, "Why are you doing this?" We have the Labourer's International Union of North America opposed to the bill and yet we have locals 247, 597, 1089 and 1059 in support of the bill. So here you've got locals within the same union on opposite sides of the issue.

You're creating a civil war, for goodness sakes, within the labour movement and we don't know why. We don't know what it is you're going to gain.

The building and construction trades department of the AFL-CIO, it doesn't count in NDP Ontario? The Canadian Federation of Labour, Jim McCambly, you don't talk to Jim? He's perplexed. He doesn't understand why you would do this. Shirley Carr? Don't tell me Shirley Carr is opposed to this legislation. Can you imagine? I had a pleasant conversation last week with Shirley.

She raises an interesting spectre, and that is one of this government being taken to court under the international laws of the International Labour Organization because it appears that once you pass Bill 80 into law, you will be in contravention of several regulations under the ILO in Geneva, Switzerland. That's a fact. I don't know if you've looked at this, but this comes from the former head of the CLC.

Mrs Marland: One of their old friends.

Mr Mahoney: And one of my family's old friends, a great friend of my dad's and my mother's Shirley said she's just disappointed and doesn't understand how you can go ahead with legislation that flies in the face of international convention.

You, sir, are going to wind up with your ministry, at the expense of the taxpayer, having to defend an international challenge because you will have violated at least three, and clearly one, conventions of the ILO.

It's one thing for a labour government, a social democratic government, to come into power in Ontario and introduce Bill 40, which was strongly supported by people in the labour movement and strongly opposed by people in business. At least you can understand your agenda there. At least when asked the question, "Why did you introduce Bill 40 and pass it into law?" you can give a clear-cut answer, and that answer would be, "It's payback time to Bob and Leo and Gordie and all the boys and girls in the industrialized union movement."

We didn't agree with the bill. We thought it was wrongheaded, not only wrongheaded for the business community but I believe it was wrongheaded for the worker on the shop floor, because it has driven out jobs. It may not be easy for you to measure and quantify and put in black and white statistics, because many of the companies that were going to make investments in Ontario decided not to, not only because of Bill 40 but because they saw that you guys, at the time you passed Bill 40, had three more years in which to inject your poison into the economy in the province of Ontario.

I understood that. People would say to me in Mississauga West, small business people would call me and say: "Don't these guys get it? Don't they understand that by unilaterally making amendments to the Labour Relations Act that are as draconian as the amendments in Bill 40, they're going to drive the investment community right out of this province?" My answer to those small business people was: "No, they don't understand that. They don't realize that to have a job you have to have a business." Not everybody can work for government. Not everybody can live in social housing.

People have to have opportunities, and who creates those opportunities? The industrialized sector, the small business sector, and they have to do it working hand in hand with the trade labour movement.

No union leader -- I've said this before -- ever negotiated a contract for the men and women in the rank and file that bankrupted the company. No union leader worth his salt would ever want to do that, because at the end of that particular negotiation, the company's gone, the jobs are gone and the union is gone.

But I understood the motivation behind Bill 40. It was payback time to the unions, absolutely. Well, you can shake your head. And it wasn't payback time to the rank and file; it was payback time to the political leaders within the trade labour movement, all of whom today hold vice-president cards in the federal New Democratic Party, not serving their representatives, not serving the constituencies that elect them in any way whatsoever. Now what you have is an opportunity to actually work with the duly, democratically elected leaders in the construction unions, and you're ignoring them.

Let me go on with the list. Again, I find it incredible. Shirley Carr, with her reputation, almost sainthood, I would say -- she probably wouldn't agree -- as far as her reputation in the labour movement is concerned, and she doesn't agree with you, Bob. She thinks you're dead wrong. In fact, she's convinced there will be a challenge under convention number 87 of the International Labour Organization, so I think you're heading down a road that's quite remarkable.

The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers: Do you care about them? You say you've consulted. I've heard about the consultations. They've been invited to attend the meeting and they sit there, and they're dictated to and told what's going to happen -- no attempts to work with these people; no attempts to find out why it is they're so upset.

Talk about the mobility issue. This is not the auto workers when Bob White led them into their own national union. That's clear-cut. You've got a plant in Oshawa, you've got a plant in St Catharines, you've got a plant in Oakville, you've got a plant in Windsor; they're units that you can get a hold of. They have people working in those plants; they're not moving around from site to site.

They might work for six months and not work for four months in the construction business. It may be their own choice to do that. They go to the union hall to find out what works are being posted, what opportunities are available. They move interprovincially around the country. Think of the construction worker in Kenora. It's entirely possible that construction worker could commute daily to Winnipeg. Will this have an impact on that construction worker if the local that he belongs to in Kenora is under different rules and regulations than the local that is controlling the work in Winnipeg, Manitoba?

Interjection

Mr Mahoney: Well, it might. We haven't been able to get an answer to that.

This minister and the government are trying to turn this into the big bad American issue. That's not a new issue. That's been around for years and years, about international unions controlling the money that is generated by the union dues paid by Canadian workers. That's been an issue for years. I can remember it, growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, when the Steelworkers executive and the elected representatives all used to get their paycheques from Pittsburgh. The big argument in those days was that somehow you had to have this great local control and you have to disassociate yourself from the American union.

I've done a little research and I just want to share something on that particular issue, if I can just find it here, because it's very important about what it is you're trying to do when dealing with an American parent. This is actually from a bio, and I've read quotes from my father in the past. Some of you know he was national director of the Steelworkers, a union the Minister of Labour used to be an organizer for.

I remember the debates that went on with Joe Miller, one of Ms Carr's predecessors. I remember the debates with Johnny Barker in the Sault and all the arguments about affiliation or disaffiliation, about national status, and how we've got to control our own revenue and our own money here in Canada.

This is interesting. It says: "True national independence is a byproduct. It comes to a nation which seeks the greatest possible success...." Now, that's very relevant to this debate, because what this government should be talking about is seeking the greatest possible success for workers in the construction industry and not worrying about tinkering with their constitution. Where do you get off unilaterally changing the rules, in a democratic society, in a constitution that was adopted by the rank and file and by the membership of any union? Where do you get off? It's outrageous. It's anything but democratic.

It is highly socialistic and it's wrong. You're doing it unilaterally without the concurrence of the groups.

There are many more. I'm going to read the names into the record and I'm going to read the letters they've sent. They've sent some to me. They've sent them all to the minister. They've sent some to the Premier. I just don't understand why you're doing this to them.

"True national independence is a byproduct. It comes to a nation which seeks the greatest possible success, stability and independence for its individual citizens," also for its individual members of the rank and file of the union. In this speech, Bill Mahoney went on to say, "On the other hand, those who are willing to sacrifice people for shoddy symbolism and frightened isolation are doomed not only to disillusionment but to national failure as well." Minister Mackenzie, this is shoddy symbolism and you, sir, are dooming the members in the unions and the construction industry in the exact same way.

This was a labour leader, one of the compatriots of the men and women across there. Make the Canadian people more successful: What an outrageous idea. Do you not think we could try that? Do you not think we could concentrate on trying to make Ontario construction workers more successful, instead of telling them that we're just going to change their constitution, change the way they do business, that we don't care about their objectives?

Going on in the speech, the statement talks about the success in the United States. It says: "The history of the United States showed," in its battle for independence, "true independence followed success. It didn't precede success."

Here we are, a construction industry, with the highest level of unemployment in the province, and all they really want is success. You can't precede success with independence. You can't stand up and say: "We're going to go independent of our parent unions. We're going to just forget all the rules and regulations that have been put in place."

Let me give you an example, because let me tell you, this is a complicated issue. It's not simply black and white and it's hard to explain. The minister knows that and I think this bill's been drafted in such a way as to make it hard to understand to someone who doesn't live this business every day. But in the 1930s, maybe even the 1920s, there were rules put out, and many members across the floor would understand these rules.

There's a book that's out -- it's that thick -- and it's on jurisdictional disputes. So you're an ironworker and you're on a particular job. The plumbers are there and there's some fight over who's going to do certain work involved. There are statutes, there are rules that have been put in place that go back as far as 1927 that say, "This work belongs to the ironworkers," or "This work belongs to the boilermakers." Those rules are there. They've been drafted in legalese. They've been gone through in convention after convention of labour movements to try to solve disputes.

Disputes can come up not only in the area of the type of work that is being done, but geographically. I heard of a problem in the Quinte area where a union job brought workers in from Toronto for some reason, when there were equally skilled workers in that particular community quite capable of doing the job. There is a requirement to have a referee, to have somebody interpret the rules as they're laid out in the document.

Up to now, it's been the parent unions that come in. It's clear-cut. They get the rules out and they say, "This job belongs to the ironworkers; the rest of you guys get out of here," or "This job belongs to the local in Quinte; you guys from Toronto, hit the highway."

It's there; the mechanism is there. We talk about buzzwords and terms like "level playing fields" and "dispute settlement mechanisms." They're there.

If there's one thing the trade labour movement has accomplished -- and there are many -- it's a clear-cut set of rules to settle disputes. Now this bill -- unless of course the minister's amended this but I'll have to assume he hasn't -- will make the Ontario Labour Relations Board the dispute settlement mechanism. That's terrific. This is like centralizing power. This is like going to what in essence is a private sector mechanism working within the duly democratic system of the labour movement in the construction industry and saying: "We're going to have government call the shots here.

We don't think you guys have been able to settle your disputes." We've asked: "Give us examples. Where are the problems?"

You talk about trusteeships. Name names. Where is there a problem? Yet we can't get an answer. All we get is laughing and shaking of the head by the Labour minister. Just give us the examples.

Is it at all possible that the leadership in the labour movement in the construction industry is mature enough? There's one up there, Joe Maloney. Is Joe mature enough to be able to sit down and work out a dispute if a dispute occurs? I think he is and I think a lot of his cohorts who have been coming to us and coming to the critic for the Conservative Party -- since when does the labour movement go to the Conservative Party in this province? That's how frustrated they are. They're now even going to the Conservative Party saying, "You've got to defend us."

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Listen, they are the defenders of the working people, don't you know?

Mr Mahoney: I understand that. Why do all these people come to the critic for the Liberal Party, for the official opposition? Why wouldn't they go to you? They're supposed to be your people. Why wouldn't they go to you? Why do they come to us? Are they paranoid? What do you think, Joe? Are you a wacko? I don't think so. You're a pretty responsible guy who understands the labour movement, understands the construction industry better than most of us in this place. Pat Dillon, is he a wacko?

Minister, these are supposed to be your buddies. You won't talk to them. In Bob Rae's Ontario there's no room for talking to these people. You sit there and it frustrates you, but I tell you, if you're telling me that you've talked to these people and listened to these people, then they're all lying to me.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm not going to say they are lying, but I have talked to them.

Mr Mahoney: They say you have not. You see, there's a difference between sitting in a room and saying, "What do you want?" and sitting in a room and saying: "How can we help you? How can we work this out?" Sure, the initial cries were to scrap the bill, and I think they'd still like you to scrap the bill, but why won't you comply with a simple request to set up a committee to involve people from the internationals, to involve people from the locals -- duly elected, I might add -- to sit down with Jim Thomas or whoever you want to assign this to, to see if you can put out on the table -- you know what?

I'd settle for this -- the five greatest problems that you've experienced not having Bill 80 in place, just five of them.

I've been asking for somebody to tell me one example of a trusteeship in the last 20 years that's been imposed on a local union without just cause. I can't find it. The system's already in place. They have to make application to apply a trusteeship. They have to be subject to a review every 12 months to allow the trusteeship to stay in place. They can't just arbitrarily ride into town on horseback with their guns out and say: "Get out of here. I'm taking over the union." They can't do that. The minister knows that and the people in the movement know that.

I've talked about the boilermakers. I'll have some more to talk to you about them. I have so much documentation on this stuff, it's unbelievable. It's hard to know where to begin.

The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union opposed Bill 80. They don't count in Bob Rae's Ontario or Bob Mackenzie's Labour ministry. How can that be so? We rely on those people. In many cases, those are the first people all our guests who come to Ontario see. The people who work in the hospitality industry can make or break this province, they can make or break a city, the way they react to the people who come in and visit. We have a great tourist destination here in the greater Toronto area, with our Blue Jays and our Leafs and our Dome and all of the benefits of coming here. It's a wonderful place. It's a safe place.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Basketball.

Mr Mahoney: A basketball team is coming, thanks to David Peterson and others. It's a great place to come and these people are sort of the front line. I'm sure Oshawa's a tourist community to many. You've got people in that union in Oshawa, I say to the former mayor. The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, what's the wrong word there? Is it "international"? Is that what bugs you guys? Do you want to wrap yourself in some mythical flag? Maybe it is. Maybe that's the problem.

Maybe you want to put a border up around the province completely, but remember one thing: When you put that border up around the province, it's not just on the American border; it's on the Quebec border; it's on the Manitoba border. It eliminates the ability for mobility that these people have enjoyed up to now. Think about it. Whether it's from Ottawa or Cornwall, whether it's the GTA or Niagara Falls, whether it's Windsor or Sarnia, wherever there are construction tradespeople in those communities, many of them will go south of the border.

In fact, I have an example here. This is quite interesting. I told you I was going to talk about the boilermakers a little bit. This is an order form for jobs. Imagine that. We could use that here instead of this phony Jobs Ontario whatever you guys are putting up and trying to pretend you're solving the unemployment problem with when every Friday we just see new figures coming out that show that's not the case. This is an order form. This is called MOST. Listen to this: mobilization, optimization, stabilization and training. That's what these people are concerned about. This is actually entitled A Job Order for Canadian Boilermakers. It's pretty current too, hot off the press.

Local 667 in Charleston, West Virginia, is requesting manpower from the Canadian local supplying manpower, Local 128 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. They give the port of entry, Buffalo, New York, and tell them they should use the Fort Erie bridge. This is not new. This goes on a lot. They're looking for 20 welders to work a day shift starting at 7 am, and 30 more to work a night shift starting at 5:30 pm. The job location is the Mitchell plant, Moundsville, West Virginia. They suggest that they report directly to the job site.

Boilermakers will be screened prior to employment, welders must pass certain tests, etc, etc. They will work for the Minotte Contractors in Minotte Square, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, four 10-hour days, Monday through Thursday, six to eight weeks of employment and, listen to this, $18.90 an hour plus an additional dollar effective October 1. They pay mileage for these people to get there. There's a relationship there.

This is just common sense. If Local 128 in Toronto is disaffiliated with the International Boilermakers, where do you think Local 667 in Charleston, West Virginia, is going to look for its workers? Maybe under NAFTA they'll look to Mexico. Who knows? Maybe they will. You people decide that you're all against NAFTA, any kind of free trade. You want to put those borders up. Now you're going to put borders up around the movement and the mobility of people in the construction unions. I again ask the question, why? What did they possibly do to tick you guys off?

The unions in the auto industry have said they're not going to send you their dues any more. I didn't hear that out of the construction unions. I didn't hear a resolution from anybody working or not working in construction blaming the NDP for all their problems. They were trying to be loyal, and what do you do? You stab them right in the back. They don't understand it.

That's a hot-off-the-press job order for Canadian workers. If you pass Bill 80, we'll be in jeopardy. Will it automatically happen? No. There has to be a disaffiliation, there has to be a breakaway, there have to be debates, clearly, but you're putting in place a mechanism that bypasses the legitimate constitution of the International Boilermakers along with dozens of other trade unions. They don't understand why you're doing it. Who are you