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

November 27, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Nov-27 vol. A (PDF)

L108A - Mon 27 Nov 2000 / Lun 27 nov 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SKILLS TRAINING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

RAMADAN

CANADIAN ALLIANCE PROGRAM

FIREFIGHTERS' AWARDS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

COLDWATER CURLING CLUB

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

STATUS OF BILL 119

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (PHOTO-RADAR), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (RADAR PHOTOGRAPHIQUE)

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

QUESTION PERIOD

AMBULANCE SERVICE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

EMERGENCY SERVICES

UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HIGHWAY 407

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

SPEECH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

HIGHWAY SAFETY

LIVING LEGACY

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT

PROPERTY TAXATION

HOMELESSNESS

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

VETERINARY SERVICES

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

HIGHWAY SAFETY

PHOTO RADAR

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

RAMSEY INDUSTRIAL ROAD

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL (INDUSTRIE DE LA CONSTRUCTION)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Almost exactly one year ago, this Legislature passed, on second reading, my private member's Bill 10,

An Act to bring health and safety programs to Ontario students. While injured workers' groups all across the province cheered this positive action by the Legislature in supporting legislation that we believed would reduce accidents and fatalities in the workplace, particularly among young people, we also realized that putting this bill into action would not necessarily immediately follow.

However, to be fair, there has been some movement by the Ministry of Labour, as they've been instrumental in forming a health and safety advisory council, one of the key elements of my bill. Unfortunately, it is now becoming clear that while the intent of this advisory council is honourable, its ability to ensure that the appropriate health and safety programs get into classrooms across the province is severely limited. What is becoming equally clear is that it will very likely take the force of legislation to guarantee that all Ontario students get the benefit of appropriate and needed health and safety education, no matter where they live in this province.

It is for that reason I'm calling on Labour Minister Chris Stockwell and Government House Leader Sterling today to move Bill 10 forward for third reading. Just this past week, two more lives were lost in industrial accidents in northwestern Ontario. While we may never know whether they could have been prevented, it seems clear to me, and it certainly did to the Legislature last year, that providing health and safety education as part of the regular curriculum can only improve our chances of reducing future tragedies.

Minister, there is strong support for this legislation all across the province. We're counting on your support to see that it becomes law as soon as possible.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I want to deal with an issue today that's profoundly disturbing to my constituents in Etobicoke North who are UI-eligible under the Unemployment Insurance Act and to draw attention to the federal Grit administration's continuing discrimination against our workers, not only in Etobicoke North but throughout Ontario, by their continued refusal to move forward with a fair labour market adjustment agreement. Ottawa has signed agreements with the rest of the provinces, but purposely withheld monies from Ontario.

There is continuing evidence to suggest that the federal Grits' HRDC programs in our province aren't working for many Ontario citizens. In fact, the federal Auditor General's report exposed serious problems with HRDC's unemployment programs, including fiscal mismanagement, poor service and the lack of a consistent strategy across Ontario. Furthermore, the $620 million owed to Ontario workers is being squandered on a continuing basis. This is more than simply a waste of money. It's a squandered opportunity to improve the lives of Ontario workers who need this training to succeed in this intensely competitive economy.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): As a courtesy to the government, I want to draw to their attention a startling announcement that was made last week by the appointed supervisor of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp. He announced some major changes in the health delivery network within the new city of Hamilton, which included moving the burns trauma unit from the downtown area, the general hospital that services the industrial area, to McMaster, and taking the psychiatry unit, which is currently split, and sending that all over to the general.

There is widespread concern that these proposed changes are questionable, and in fact that some are ill-conceived and clearly not in the best interests of the community.

Exacerbating that problem was Mr Mulchey's announcement that the cost of making these changes-and many think the changes ought to be made in a way that keeps the money improving the services where they are-could be some $250 million. He suggested that $125 million of that would have to come from property taxes locally, our already beleaguered property taxes. I want to, as a courtesy, get that on the record.

I also want to draw to the minister's attention the confidential report on the central bed registry, which I'll send over to her later today, which talks about the critical care bypass meltdown that's about to occur in Hamilton. I'd appreciate it very much if she would review that and perhaps make a statement in the House that would allay some of the fears in my community.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Yet more people are now being put at great risk by this government. Eric Gage of Fonthill writes that on October 17, visiting his ophthalmologist, he "identified a rapidly developing cataract in my left eye as the source of my problem. Upon requesting an early appointment for surgery and intraocular lens implant," Mr Gage was informed that he "should expect to wait upwards of 10 months for this procedure, and possibly as much as 18 months."

Yet again, Robert Layton, St Catharines: "It is unfortunate that because of your government's policies, senior citizens"-yes, it's primarily senior citizens, our parents and grandparents-"are being short-changed on health care. Those waiting for treatment related to cataracts and lens replacements are obliged to expect even longer delays for medical appointments.

"Government budget restrictions"-cutbacks, my friends-"require a cut-off after the allocated funding for new eye surgery is expended. The efficient service at the Hotel Dieu Hospital faces closure at the end of December for a period of time." Closure. "During this past year, 1,542 patients were treated there. That figure is 500 less than before cutbacks."

This Minister of Health and this Premier of the province of Ontario had better understand that their tax cuts for the wealthy are putting our senior citizens under direct attack. Those senior citizens are well aware of why those waiting lists are there for cataract treatment and why those lineups are there, and this government is responsible for it. They know it, and there will be payback time in due course.

RAMADAN

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I would like to wish all members of the House a special Muslim blessing: Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Rahim-in the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful.

This week marks the beginning of Ramadan for the members of the Muslim community in Ontario and across the world. Ramadan is the holiest month in Islam and it commemorates the time when the Qu'ran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. Peace be upon him.

Observed during the ninth lunar month, Ramadan traditionally begins with the actual sighting of the new moon. For 30 days, our Muslim sisters and brothers will be living a life of restraint and piety, staying away from food and drinks between sunrise and sunset. Fasting during Ramadan is one of the five pillars of Islam, and with the exception of children, the sick and the very old, all devout Muslims are expected to participate.

As Ramadan ends, Muslims come together in prayer to celebrate the thanksgiving festival of Eid-ul-Fitr. This festival of breaking fast lasts for three days and is marked by feasting and the exchange of gifts between friends and relatives. In fulfilling the teachings of their faith, Muslims all across the world are demonstrating a commitment to righteousness and compassion.

I would like you to join with me in wishing all members of Ontario's proud Muslim community Ramadan Kareen and Eid Mubarak. This greeting, which in Arabic means, "May you have a month of giving and a blessed feast," speaks to the central meaning of Ramadan.

Salam Alekum.

CANADIAN ALLIANCE PROGRAM

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): This weekend I was able to attend a number of events in my riding, and I was approached by constituents who were most distressed to understand that the Reform-Alliance party has covered up its real plan to eliminate old age security and scale back the Canada pension plan.

In an Edmonton Journal article, Alberta MP Ken Epp, deputy finance critic for the Reform-Alliance, said, "The old age security is a government program, and I think as we come up with alternative methods of providing for people's income when they reach retirement age, we would have to phase that out." While this specific information has not been revealed during the campaign, it is covered in

section 38 of the Reform-Alliance secret candidate manual.

Needless to say, constituents in my riding are indignant and incensed that the Reform-Alliance party would act in such a duplicitous way to scrap a pillar of Canada's public pension system for seniors.

Just as Mike Harris's tax cuts have cost the people of Ontario dearly, it is becoming increasingly more clear that Stockwell Day and his reform agenda will cost Canadians those programs and services that we have earned and for which we are respected internationally. I am confident that Canadians, including Ontarians, will see through his smoke and mirrors and deliver the message he needs to hear: keep your tax cuts so we can keep our health care, education and pension plan.

FIREFIGHTERS' AWARDS

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): While I could rise and talk about Jean Chrétien's hundreds of broken promises over the years, I prefer to talk about the Ontario Medal for Firefighters Bravery.

On Thursday, November 9, 2000, three Niagara region firefighters-Gary Richard Honsberger, George Upham and Kurt Wilkinson of the Thorold fire department-were honoured for their bravery.

The Honourable Lieutenant Governor Hilary M. Weston and Solicitor General David Tsubouchi presented the 2000 Ontario Medal for Firefighters Bravery to these firefighters on behalf of the provincial government.

Today I stand in this Legislature to thank these gentlemen on behalf of the people in the Niagara region, who greatly appreciate the services rendered by these remarkable individuals.

Firefighters Honsberger, Wilkinson and Upham risked their lives to free an employee during an explosion at a Thorold toy manufacturing plant on November 9, 1999. These three firefighters worked together to free the employee and were able to carry the woman to safety. Sadly, despite their courageous efforts, the woman was critically injured and did not survive.

It's unlikely that these firefighters think of themselves as heroes. They believe simply that this is the work they have chosen to do; it is a part of their job. However, they are heroes. They are heroes in the eyes of their families, their peers and the citizens in their communities. Today I rise in the Legislature to thank them and recognize them for their bravery.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): The Ministry of Community and Social Services operates a program called the adoption disclosure registry, a wonderful program that brings together adoptees and birth parents in a very planned, formal process that ensures that everyone is comfortable with coming together.

The problem with this program is that it doesn't work for one simple reason: the province provides zero funding to children's aid societies to administer the adoption disclosure registry. Where they do find the money, they have to steal it from direct care to children's services. That in itself is a crime.

This means that there are middle-aged people in Ontario waiting five, six or seven years before they are able to commence the search process to find their birth parents or to find the children they gave for adoption.

What that causes to happen is that individuals are forced to go and use other, more clandestine processes to find the other individual: unplanned, without counselling, without the other party having the advantage or the privilege or indeed the right to know whether the child or their birth parent is looking for them, and potentially, and in fact in reality has caused some very disastrous reunions, all because the province gives lip service to the program while having absolutely no line for funding whatsoever in children's aid societies. I urge the government to fund the program and make it work.

COLDWATER CURLING CLUB

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On Saturday, November 25, I was honoured to be able to take

part in the official opening of the Coldwater Curling and Recreational Centre, both in my capacity as the local MPP as well as a participant in the first curling bonspiel to be held in this facility. The Coldwater Curling Club has never had a home rink of their own. Since they were formed as a club in the early 1970s, they have curled on the local ice hockey surface as well as in curling rinks in Orillia, Midland and Penetanguishene. However, during that period they have always worked at fundraising, in the hope that one day they would have a rink of their own.

Curling is a very popular winter sport in rural Ontario, attracting boys, girls, men and women of all ages. Already, the Coldwater Curling Club has attracted 160 adults and 70 youth curlers, and they have scheduled a number of bonspiels for this winter.

I'm proud to see that our government provided assistance of $50,000 toward this project from the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

There are so many people to thank and congratulate for the success of this project, and I'll name a few. Under the leadership of individuals such as president Graham Connolly, secretary Wendy Oakley, building project leader Brian Binns and fundraisers such as Dr Evans Stone, Walter Dickie and Iris Beach, this beautiful new facility sits debt-free and ready for years of entertainment.

Once again, the small community I call my home has proven that hard work and volunteerism can lead to success.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On November 14, the member for Hamilton Mountain raised a point of privilege with respect to recruitment of members of the Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board. I have now had an opportunity to review that matter and the relevant procedural precedents and authorities.

According to the member for Hamilton Mountain there are two issues. The first is that the Public Appointments Secretariat is "seeking members for the Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board" in advance of passage of Bill 132. The member asserts that Bill 132 "creates" the board, and since it's still being considered by this House, the secretariat is in contempt of the House for acting upon legislation which is not passed.

In reviewing our precedents, I find many in which various Speakers have made it clear that the public service has a responsibility to prepare itself and stand in readiness for the possible passage of legislation. Let me cite just one ruling on December 20, 1989. In it, Speaker Edighoffer said, "It is perfectly valid for the public service to proceed with plans based on a bill that is already in the system in order to be able to act swiftly, once the bill becomes law. It goes without saying that if the bill is amended during the legislative process, then the public service must take note and act accordingly."

I find this case to be within due diligence on the part of the public service in preparation for pending legislation.

The member also indicated, however, that her office had been informed that the quality assessment board was created by the order in council in September. In her view, if this is the case, then the order in council itself serves to leave the impression that the legislative consideration of the bill is meaningless.

I did take some time to review both the order in council and the bill with respect to this point. First, my reading of Bill 132 is that it continues the Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board; it does not create it. If this is not the case, however, and if the order in council was passed without the proper legislative authority, then it may be ruled invalid in a court of law but is not a procedural matter and does not constitute a contempt of the House.

I therefore find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out.

I want to thank the member for her submission and would add one footnote. When a member raises a point of order or a point of privilege in this House and refers to material not of this chamber, such as the Internet announcement, which is becoming more frequent, it would be helpful to the Chair and greatly expedite my response if the materials in question could be provided at the time the point is raised. I would thank all members for that consideration.

STATUS OF BILL 119

I again want to thank the member for bringing this to my attention.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (PHOTO-RADAR), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (RADAR PHOTOGRAPHIQUE)

Mr Hoy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 148,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to photo-radar / Projet de loi 148, Loi modifiant le Code de la route à l'égard du radar photographique.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It is the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Does the member have a short statement?

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): The bill will provide protection for motorists who must drive the notorious stretch of Highway 401 between London and Windsor that has become known as Carnage Alley. This bill will follow the safety recommendations of two recent coroners' juries and implement photo radar on this dangerous highway.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to Standing Order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, November 27, Tuesday, November 28 and Wednesday, November 29, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Sterling moves that pursuant to to Standing Order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday 27, Tuesday, November 28 and Wednesday, November 29, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business. It is the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

QUESTION PERIOD

AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I've got a question for the Minister of Health and it has to do with the Provincial Auditor's report. He's weighed in, along with every other thoughtful study, saying that it is a mistake to put ambulance service on to municipalities. Dave Crombie, who headed up your own Who Does What panel, said it's a mistake to do that. They were unanimous in that respect. The Ontario Hospital Association says you're making a huge mistake, the consultants who have looked at it said you're making a huge mistake and now the Provincial Auditor has weighed in on it and said you're making a huge mistake.

We now have overwhelming evidence that it's time for you to say, "Listen, we are going in the wrong direction. Let's stop."

Will you today, Minister, admit that it is a mistake to put ambulance service on to municipalities, it should be something that's run province-wide, and will you now reverse the decision?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member knows, there was a decision made by the government regarding the restructuring of delivery of services in the province of Ontario. As part of the restructuring initiative that was undertaken, a decision was made that ambulances would become, in the way of the delivery of service, a partnership between the municipalities and the provincial government.

I'm pleased to say we now have a committee of municipalities and the Ministry of Health, who have been working together quite co-operatively and will continue to do so in order to ensure that this new partnership results in a more accountable and more effective and transparent delivery of ambulance services in Ontario.

Mr Phillips: I know you've made the decision, but the decision is wrong. I guarantee you, a year and a half from now we are going to hold the Harris government accountable for this mistake. Your are being warned about this. It's a huge mistake. Dave Crombie, the person Harris hand-picked to look at this, along with 14 other people, said, "It's a mistake. You're making a huge mistake." The Ontario Hospital Association said you are making a mistake, and now, just as the auditor warned you about the environment and the Premier was forced to admit he made a mistake there, the auditor has warned you again.

This decision will be final a year from now. Now is the time to reverse the decision. Yes, you've made the decision, but the decision is wrong. Will you admit today that it is wrong, decide to make the right decision and make sure ambulance service is run and managed by the province, as every single study that has looked at this says you should?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I don't know if the member is aware of the fact that ambulance services were never delivered 100% by the province. The majority have been delivered by the private sector, the hospital sector, municipalities and the volunteer sector, and only 10 were the responsibility of the province. If you take a look at the fact that we have 177 services in Ontario and only 10 of them were ever operated by the province, we are now in the position where we have a new partnership that will mean municipalities and the province will be working together co-operatively.

We want to ensure that there is going to be a seamless transition. I'm very pleased to say the committee that has been set up under the leadership of my parliamentary assistant, Brad Clark, has been working very well together-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Final supplementary?

Mr Phillips: I'm completely aware that every single study you've done said, "Don't do it." I'm aware that the auditor as recently as last week said these municipal boundaries will impair the seamlessness. He's telling you that you are making a mistake. Everybody is telling you that. Surely you can understand that.

Last week the Premier was forced to admit he had made a huge mistake and had screwed up the environment. Today the auditor is telling you that you are making a huge mistake; you're screwing up the ambulance services. I'll give you a recommendation. I know you don't like to admit you are wrong. Will you today commission an independent study to look at this to confirm what every other study has said, and then will you then acknowledge that you have made a mistake and reverse this decision to avoid people dying? That is what people are warning you about. Will you do that?

Will you commission an independent study to look at this, so you can save some face when the independent study tells you to do what every other study has told you to do, and reverse your decision?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I remind the member opposite one more time that the province never did run the ambulance service. I also remind the member opposite that the auditor did his report in March this year-and we very much appreciate the work that was done-but I hasten to add that since that time we have been working together very co-operatively with the municipalities. Since that time we have reached an agreement on a funding template for ambulance costs, we have transferred $30 million and we are prepared to invest whatever else is needed to ensure we have in place the standards necessary to ensure the best possible delivery of ambulance services.

I also hasten to add that 30% of the municipalities have already successfully assumed responsibility for ambulance provision, and this is ahead of schedule.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Last week the Provincial Auditor confirmed the worst fears of environmentalists in this province, the opposition and, I think, a growing segment of the population of Ontario when he revealed that deep cuts to Ministry of the Environment staff under the Harris Conservative government have severely damaged the provincial government's ability to deal with serious environmental problems in this province. I quote from what he says:

"We noted that there had been a significant reduction in ministry-initiated inspections since 1996. While regional staff was reduced by over 25% during this period, ministry-initiated inspections decreased by 34%. From 1995-96 to 1999-2000, ministry-initiated inspections of hazardous and liquid industrial waste sites declined from about 2,000 to 1,190 per year. Similarly, inspections of municipal water treatment plants declined by over half, from over 400 to about 190 per year over the past five years."

I ask the minister, in light of what the Provincial Auditor has said, will he now admit that the enormous funding and staff cuts to the Ministry of the Environment made a tragedy such as Walkerton almost a certainty, and will he now commit to restoring the full staff and the full funding to that ministry?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I'd like to thank the Provincial Auditor for his report. We take his concerns and recommendations very seriously on this side of the House. His input has been an important part of ensuring the environment gets the best possible protection it can.

Right now, Ministry of the Environment staff are carefully reviewing the Provincial Auditor's recommendations to determine areas where we can do even better. In fact, the ministry is already working to address the auditor's recommendations and we have implemented an aggressive action plan with set timelines to address all of the auditor's recommendations. We're looking at new and innovative ways to improve environmental protection. The auditor's report recognizes the value of our own in-depth review to improve actions and procedures.

Mr Bradley: The auditor talks as well about an internal review that you had that confirmed what he found out.

"The internal review determined that in 69 of the 100 inspection reports reviewed, violations were identified, including 22 considered significant by the ministry. However, enforcement actions taken included only one control order issued and no fines or charges. In 19 cases, the environmental officer requested that the facility operator provide a voluntary abatement action plan; however, only one plan was actually received.

"In addition, the internal assessment noted that approximately one third of all violations identified were repeat violations."

He also said that "the ministry's assessment of its inspection program conducted during 1999 considered as minor 51 of the 58 violation types noted. Violations considered to be minor included failure to take or report samples of effluent or water quality, use of an uncertified operator, lack of a contingency plan should systems fail and the operation of water and sewage facilities not in accordance with the approval specifications."

Minister, does not this weak-kneed, half-hearted, dismal record of enforcing Ontario's environmental laws, confirmed by the Provincial Auditor, confirm that the Harris government has neither the staff nor the will to confront polluters in this province?

Hon Mr Newman: The point I wanted to make today is the fact that we do have a total review of the Ministry of the Environment underway right now, headed up by Val Gibbons, who is a well-respected management consultant and former civil servant within the province of Ontario, to thoroughly review ministry operations and to recommend ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of all the programs within the Ministry of the Environment.

Let's hear what the auditor also had to say in 1987, when the member opposite was the Minister of the Environment. He said, "In our review of six districts covering two regions, we observed that in four districts there were no control logs or

summary records of complaints received, nor reports on the status of complaints." The Provincial Auditor goes on, "There were 15 instances where no evidence existed that the complaint was addressed. In one instance, the complaint reported an unknown substance spilling into a lake," and in another case an incident of dumping and burying toxic waste was reported.

Mr Bradley: I don't know whether it's the lack of staff or the lack of will that the auditor has identified, but it was revealed this week that you have broken a promise made by the Honourable Norm Sterling, a promise made to Dr Harry Parrott, a Conservative; Ruth Grier, a Democratic Party former environment minister, and myself. We wrote a letter to Norm Sterling, the Minister of the Environment of the day, asking that Dombind, a toxic material, no longer be allowed to be applied to roads as a dust suppressant.

Norm Sterling wrote back to us and said, "I agree with you three," and by the end of the spreading in the year 2000-that's by the end of November-we will no longer allow the use of this toxic material on roads.

You broke that promise. You kept one promise-to get the Ministry of the Environment out of polluters' faces-but you have now given this company two additional years to allow this toxic substance to be applied to the roads of Ontario. Why do you not live up to the promise made by Norm Sterling, and why do you not end the use of this dust suppressant with dioxin in it on the roads of Ontario?

Hon Mr Newman: The government is indeed concerned about the use of Dombind as a road dust suppressant. That's why we're committed to seeing it phased out. Since Dombind will not be used as a dust suppressant in the very near future, Norampac, which is the company that produces Dombind, is currently developing alternatives.

We have indicated to the company that their proposed phase-out period was too slow and too unacceptable. We've indicated that the proposed time frame needed to be reduced. Right now the company is in negotiations with the suppliers of their new technology, and it would be inappropriate to discuss the new technology and the proposed time frames for implementation.

This is not an extension. It is a proposal to stop the spreading of Dombind after the year 2002. We've told the company that they must begin the implementation strategy today. If by tomorrow the company has not ordered the new technology confirming that it is proceeding with the implementation, the company will be in non-compliance with the 1999 director's order and will be-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time is up.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): To the Minister of Health: today's dramatic news out of Hamilton only serves to underscore that your handling of emergency and ambulance services in Hamilton and across the province has been nothing less than disaster on wheels. Dr Frank Baillie, medical director for Ontario CritiCall resources registry, is reported as saying that the emergency system in Hamilton has gone into meltdown mode.

His report says the situation is worse than ever. For two terrifying days last month, this report shows that there were no more beds, no more heart monitors, no more nurses to call in and no more room in the hallways for overflow patients in any of Hamilton's four hospitals. I can imagine how you must feel morning after morning, seeing the screaming headlines declaring your government's failure on this issue, but can you imagine how the parents of a small child must feel, knowing they may be turned away because the ambulances can't get in, that it may mean their child's life?

Minister, why is it that after more than two years of announcements that you've fixed this problem, the situation in Hamilton could be described as going into meltdown mode?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member of the third party knows, the situation related to emergency pressures certainly has not been unique to us in Ontario and it has not been unique to any province or territory in Canada. It is a situation that is being experienced worldwide.

In 1998 we began to address the situation because there had been terrible neglect up until that time. We put a task force together. The task force made recommendations. Since 1998, we have been moving forward to ensure that we can meet those emergency room pressures. We've actually invested some $725 million. We have expanded home care services. We are building 20,000 additional long-term-care beds. We have introduced alternative funding plans for physicians. We have added additional nurses, all in-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

Ms Lankin: I have heard that answer before, but the problem is that the situation is getting worse out there. Emergency rooms have always been busy during the flu season, but emergency rooms in Hamilton, in Toronto, in the GTA and in other centres are in a crisis year-round now. There are reports of patients being yanked off heart monitors to provide the heart monitor to someone else. Hospitals in Hamilton turned away ambulances 41% of the time in October and early November. That's a new record, Minister.

Experts before the Fleuelling coroner's inquest told you that the rapid decline in emergency services began in 1996 and is now at a crisis proportion, and it's going to get worse. How many ambulances are going to be lined up outside our hospitals with critically ill patients, unable to unload them?

Minister, are you going to stand today and tell Hamiltonians not to worry about what could mean a life-and-death situation to them or their loved ones?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Despite what the member opposite says, the situation unfortunately has been ongoing for a long time. I'd just like to share with the member some quotes. One of them is a quote from the Toronto Star on November 21, 1993. This relates to the Port Arthur hospital in Thunder Bay. "The best way to sum it up is now we're forced to give a level of care I'm not proud of. We were told we had to cut back so we closed beds. It didn't work because we ended up with people sitting in emergency having heart attacks."

It says in the Toronto Star, November 21, 1993, "Don't get sick over Christmas," regarding ER overcrowding at the Ajax-Pickering hospital. Again, a nurse at Hamilton Civic Hospital, Judy Morphet, on November 21, 1993, said in the Toronto Star, on being unable to treat people because of lack of ER-

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

Ms Lankin: Minister, I don't understand how you can day after day ignore what the experts are saying. The trends that began in 1996 and have continued to spiral downward in terms of emergency services come nowhere near to paralleling situations that existed in the time periods that you keep referring to.

Dr Baillie's report says that this increase in critical care bypasses is occurring not just in Hamilton but in Toronto. We've been telling you that for months. I've been telling you about ambulances lined up, waiting up to 45 minutes to off-load patients. I've told you about dispatchers' calls backing up on their desks. I've been telling you this; the auditor has now confirmed it; experts before the Fleuelling inquest confirmed it; the jury's recommendations confirmed it. Minister, you're still talking as though it's not a crisis.

You've had recommendations from the Fleuelling jury for over a week now. You know that on two occasions in those recommendations they called on you to consider an immediate moratorium on further hospital and hospital bed closures. Will you today announce an immediate moratorium on all further hospital and hospital bed closures?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'd like to respond in two ways. First of all, I think the member opposite is being quite selective, because if she wants to go back to the Fleuelling inquest, the

preamble to the jury stated this:

"We learned that the problems currently being encountered in the delivery of health care services are not unique to this city or province but, in fact, are evident in many jurisdictions worldwide.

"The problems are systemic in nature and are not easily solved. These problems have developed over a period of time."

That's what they said at the Fleuelling inquest, for your information.

Furthermore, our government has been working forward with a plan since 1998 because your government, for example, chose not to build any long-term-care beds, and the Liberals stopped building them in 1998. But we have added money recently to open over 1,200 new beds across this province. And I-

The Speaker: Order. The minister's time is up.

UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I want to ask you to take responsibility for keeping York University students out of classes for four weeks and teaching assistants on strike. You have taken the unprecedented step, for a government, of pressuring a university to strip away tuition protection in order to promote your agenda with respect to post-secondary education. You slashed $1.4 billion in operating funds, you deregulated tuition, you forced tuitions to increase by 60%, and you forced student debt to double.

At York, you want to sink teaching assistants below poverty wages by stripping their tuition protection. As it stands, TAs earn $850 a month. When you subtract the tuition they pay, they are left with $700 a month to live. You want them to earn even less. How can you justify pressuring York to take tuition protection away? That's the sticking point in these negotiations. How can you defend actions that have kept students out of classes and away from their TAs for weeks now?

With respect to York University, the member knows, because she was a minister herself, that universities are autonomous institutions, and I don't think she wants me to get involved in this. I would like to hear further from her with regard to what the real problem is. They're autonomous and have to deal with their labour relations, and that would be my expectation, knowing my colleague in the opposition.

Ms Lankin: Minister, the problem is that everyone in the York community believes-and it's been reported in the newspapers-that your government has interfered. Of course we don't want you to; we want you to get out of the way of a settlement.

These workers are fighting for their survival. If your government has intervened, you're forcing a situation where they will be left to live on less than $700 a month, and those are poverty wages.

You like to talk about the brain drain, Minister, but you refuse to face the hemorrhage this situation is causing. We need to retain and support the brightest and most hard-working of our university students, these TAs.

If you honestly deny that you're pressuring York University to strip tuition protection from TAs, will you make a public statement promising the government will not interfere in Ontario's university negotiations? Will you issue a public statement to the York University community that the government has no opinion about tuition protection or any other item in the collective agreement of the teaching assistants?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: This is not a problem. We're not involved in this dispute in any way. I don't want to comment on anything that has anything to do with people working together to get an agreement. It is as simple as that.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question today is for the minister responsible for women's issues. In September the cross-sectoral strategy group came to Queen's Park demanding action on a list of emergency measures. These demands were the compromise position reached by over 125 women's groups from across the province who work on the front lines dealing with all aspects of violence against women.

My leader, Dalton McGuinty, was proud to sign his support of the emergency measures initiative at the meeting. He and the Liberal caucus understand the urgency of this issue. We understand that the lack of action from your government is costing women and children their lives.

I travelled to Sarnia on Saturday and visited the interval house there with my colleague Caroline Di Cocco.

Interjection.

Mrs Bountrogianni: Do you feel better now? May I continue?

The staff told us of the desperation women are feeling at their inability to escape their abusers. They told us about how the cuts in funding have affected programs and their ability to assist women to change their situation.

We all know the dire statistics in Ontario, but we don't know the unreported stories. In Sarnia on Saturday we learned that two women recently committed suicide because they couldn't escape. There was nowhere for them to go. This past month a 10-year-old boy, a witness to his mother's abuse, stated, "I'm not taking this any more." As his father beat his mother, he climbed the stairs to his bedroom and hanged himself. He was 10 years old. I am powerless to more completely convey to you, other than through this example, how monumental this issue is.

Violence against women is tearing apart the very fabric of our society inside our homes, inside our families, inside the women and children who are its victims.

I call upon the minister to commit to the emergency measures brought to the attention-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'm afraid the member's time is up. Minister?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): May I say that this government will not tolerate violence against women and their children. In fact, we have put forward a number of initiatives that show our commitment to that.

I remind the member opposite that at the Ministry of Community and Social Services the funding has increased in that ministry for programs that relate to violence against women. Overall, across the government, the funding has increased.

In 1994-95 there was about $100 million being spent on funding. Now we're up to $135 million. We intend to move to $145 million. But those big dollars aren't the thing that's most important. In the budget that was just announced recently there was $5 million put aside for children who have viewed domestic violence so it will help them. We also put $5 million to ensure that women who needed counselling had that counselling. We're putting our money where-

The Speaker: Order. The minister's time is up. Supplementary.

Mrs Bountrogianni: Minister, what you have done is taken money from front-line services to fund those other initiatives. That is what we are protesting. We're not protesting the new initiatives. We are-

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): What's the solution?

Mrs Bountrogianni: Why don't we get together and talk about the solution? First of all, reinstate the 5% you cut to these centres. They have been laying people off.

Minister, will you live up to your responsibility and take definitive action on this issue? Will you do that?

Hon Mrs Johns: I'd like to thank the member opposite for the question, and let me say we are taking definitive action. We're doing what we believe is necessary to ensure that women are safe in the province of Ontario. My colleague the Attorney General has made a substantial increase in domestic court services and the ability to help women to get through the process quickly. My colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services has invested more and more money into programs that affect women who are suffering from domestic assault and violence.

We continue to do many programs because we believe that this is an important issue in society. When we met with the women last week who are associated with the group the member opposite is talking about, we promised to work on a few of the initiatives they've brought forward because we thought they would make a difference in the lives of women who are suffering from domestic assault.

It's our commitment to keep working on this because we need to stop-we will not tolerate-violence against women in the province of Ontario.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, recently you claimed to be winning the battle against welfare fraud. With your latest report to taxpayers, I see that another 557 people were convicted of welfare fraud. It's difficult to imagine that with all the fraud initiatives undertaken by our government, fraud continues in this province.

Minister, with all the work our government has done to crack down on fraud, do you believe we are getting the type of return we expected for all our efforts?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): This government continues to take the policy that no fraud is good within our social system, that every dollar appropriated by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is designed to support more and more people who are needy and not there for those who are greedy.

I know the members opposite, Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party, don't agree with our crackdown on welfare fraud. They have opposed every single welfare fraud initiative that we've undertaken, and they've been very clear. They've said they don't agree with our welfare fraud policies.

I want to tell you about one success story. We instituted a Crime Stoppers-type effort to combat welfare fraud, for a rather modest expenditure of about $200,000 a year. Two years ago we were able to save $9 million from our welfare system, $6.9 million the year after and this year's welfare fraud report announced that we were able to save more than $6 million. The hard-working officials at the Ministry of Community and Social Services fraud control unit are doing an absolutely outstanding job.

Interjections.

Mr Stewart: It's interesting to hear the comments from the opposition. I assume by those comments that they condone and support fraud. I have a great deal of difficulty with that.

Minister, one of the more striking pieces in your news release last week is that your ministry found another group of people in jail collecting welfare. This is one of those injustices that I believe all Ontario taxpayers can agree needs to be eliminated. That is why we are really surprised to see that there was another 7,000 inmates collecting welfare. This government has been in power for over five years now. Why does this problem persist?

Hon Mr Baird: We continue to clamp down on fraud abuse and misuse of the welfare system at every corner. The member opposite is right. This year, we did find more than 7,100 people in our jail system collecting welfare.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Baird: I know that pains the members of the Liberal Party. They disagree with combatting welfare fraud. They are even howling when we're combatting welfare fraud in the jail system.

This government doesn't believe in double-dipping, whether you're double-dipping on a pension plan or whether you're double-dipping collecting a cheque from the Ministry of Community and Social Services and my colleague the Minister of Corrections, so we put an end to the double-dipping. The right hand finally knows what the left hand is doing. That effort is saving literally tens of millions of dollars in future avoided costs. We're able to help priority services like children, like autism, like helping those who are genuinely in need and not those who are motivated by greed.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question's for the Minister of Transport. Minister, in spring of this year, two constituents of mine, Luc and Rosine Mailloux travelled the 407. Unfamiliar with the billing procedure on the 407, they subsequently received some mail from the 407 with the letters ETR partially stricken out by a flash of yellow. These letters meant nothing to them. After receiving several over a period of a couple of months and being unfamiliar with the billing system, they opened one of the letters, found that they had to pay for their trip on the 407 plus some interest. So they paid it on September 28; they paid it in full.

On October 20, almost a month later, they received a bill from the 407 for $32, all of which would have been interest. This is after they'd paid their bill on September 28. Upon calling the ETR hotline, they were told, "Too bad. Your bill is in collection." Minister, do you think that the Maillouxs are being treated fairly, and will you help them with this problem?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): Obviously I'd have to know some more details about it. Clearly, if they have paid their bill on time, then there's something wrong, and there is an appeal process that was put in place. I look forward to receiving some details and dates from the member and we will investigate it.

Mr Crozier: Minister, I'll do that. Obviously the 407's billing system is screwed up, because I shouldn't have to bring it to your attention. But I will provide you with the details. I will provide you with where they paid that bill as of September 28 and I will provide you with a copy of the billing they received almost a month later.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I certainly look forward to receiving the information and we'll give you a report back on that.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, as we all know, today is election day in Canada. As a reminder, the American election demonstrates just how important the individual ballot really is.

During this past municipal election, it was brought to my attention that some of my Durham riding constituents were experiencing problems with the newly introduced vote-by-mail procedure. These problems could place the integrity of the entire election process at risk. Minister, with concerns raised about this procedure, could you please explain to the House how it is that some municipalities are using vote-by-mail while other municipalities choose not to use that method?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for the question. I suppose we should thank our lucky stars that Chad didn't get pregnant in Ontario. There have been no instances of butterfly ballots either.

The Municipal Elections Act is founded on a number of guiding principles, one of which is that the conduct of the municipal election is the responsibility of the individual municipalities. The municipal council has a choice of how it conducts the election, but surely it has to be in the best interests of the electors. There are a number of procedures that are described in the act, such as traditional polling-place election, but municipalities are given the opportunity to select an alternative voting system. But any system they select, be it by phone, by mail or by another method, has to be consistent with the principles embodied in the act.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for that very informative response. Just to add to that, you can thank your lucky stars and stripes. However, in my riding concerns were raised by some of the candidates, like Willy Woo, Mark Hendrikx and Troy Young, about the vote by mail. There were concerns that this process allowed room for both campaign workers and the public to tamper with ballots-imagine that-voting in the names of persons other than themselves or perhaps even influencing the votes. These are indeed serious allegations.

There were cases of mail-in ballots sent to people who were no longer alive-you'd think this was Nova Scotia-and to those who had moved. Some people received more than one ballot. I'd like to get more information about how this was able to happen in Ontario today.

Hon Mr Clement: I am concerned about the details the honourable member has described to this House. Obviously, all of us want to see elections that are impartial, fair and neutrally counted. I can tell you that in the case of municipalities, the names are found on the Ontario Property Assessment Corp list, and that they are to make every effort to ensure that only eligible electors' names appear on the voters' list. But of course they have to depend in large part on the electors themselves to update the list. In that regard, electors have a significant role to play.

They are given a number of opportunities to review and correct the voters' list before the ballots are issued, and they are asked to correct any information they know to be incorrect at the time of that particular enumeration. So there are some ways in the system to protect the validity and credibility of the electors' list. If there are some problems, then clearly the municipality should work with the electors to ensure a better job is done next time.

SPEECH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I am asking this question on behalf of my constituents Lesley and Scott Ballantyne-Smith. Their son Cameron needs speech therapy for articulation problems. He was receiving services from September 1999 until January 2000 through the local school board. However, that ended because the school board no longer had a speech therapist, and they were given the option of getting help through the CCAC. That too has not worked out, even though Cameron has been on the waiting list since December 14, 1999.

Cameron is in grade 2 and is a bright child, but he is falling further and further behind with his reading and writing because he is not receiving the services he needs. I wrote you a letter about this, but received only a form letter back from you, outlining funds you had put into the system here and there. But there was nothing in that letter that spoke directly to solving Cameron's problem. Minister, I ask you today: will you ask your staff to work with Cameron's parents to find an immediate solution before it is too late for Cameron?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member knows, issues related to special needs are dealt with through the CCACs. The educational system is involved as well in meeting the needs of those children. We have a pre-school speech and language program which is funded through the Ministry of Health. As you know, that has been expanded in recent years in order to ensure that young children can be identified and provided with the appropriate level of support as early as possible. But again, all those programs are administered by others.

We at the Ministry of Health make the money available and it is flowed to the appropriate agency, and then the decisions are made as to how the money flows to the children and adults who need the special support.

Ms Churley: Minister, that's my whole point. The children are not getting the services they need, and you fund the CCACs.

Cameron is now in serious jeopardy of being put back a grade. This is affecting his self-esteem and is causing increased frustration. The longer he has to wait, the more difficult it will be to treat the disorder. Early therapeutic intervention is absolutely critical, as bad habits are less firmly established and can be more easily corrected. There is a serious potential for Cameron's speech problem to affect his social and emotional development. His academic development has already been negatively affected. His parents are doing everything they can to assist him, but they are not experts and they cannot afford to pay for private services that cost approximately $125 per hour.

This child desperately needs help. So I'm asking you now again, Minister, will you agree to pay for a speech therapist until an opening comes up at the local CCAC, or, failing that, will you take it upon yourself to find a spot for Cameron before it is too late for him?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Our government has actually put in place and committed a substantial amount of money in recent years, because we do certainly appreciate that if we can give young children the best start in life, we know that they are going to have more chance of academic success, they are going to have fewer health problems, and there's less likelihood of getting into trouble with the law. So we have introduced two programs-the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children initiative; we are now supplying about $67 million in funding, and it works through the public health.

We also have pre-school speech and language, which I indicated to the member is available. Money is also made available through the local community care access centres. Again I would indicate that the decisions regarding how the money is allocated are made by local agencies in response to local needs.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Last month, you reported on the long-awaited expansion of Highway 401. Your staff went into denial mode the next day, correcting the wrong impression you gave the trade corridor conference.

When I asked you a question, you got up and blustered about my flawed research. I sent your remarks to me to a reporter in southwestern Ontario. The reporter has you on tape at the conference and said some rather uncomplimentary things about your denial. This is a recurring problem, Minister. You never seem to say quite what you mean. Now the record is clear.

My question: you refuse to commit to any expansion through Carnage Alley, even though it may turn into Garbage Alley. You refuse to commit to a centre median beyond Tilbury, even though Tilbury to London has the most fatalities and crossovers. You refuse to put paved level shoulders on both sides of the highway to protect motorists.

Dalton McGuinty has called for photo radar on Carnage Alley and wants the money to be used for more police. Will you implement photo radar at least as a pilot project on Carnage Alley?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): It's very interesting. Let me read what Dalton McGuinty said in the last election: "I'm saying it's not a priority. It's not in the plans. I have no intention of putting it forward. Maybe in 10 years from now by all means." Dalton McGuinty is a guy who's got more positions than the Kama Sutra.

The fact is that 90% of all the dangerous driving practices are not caught by photo radar. Traditional enforcement is the best way. We've got to address rapid lane changes, tailgating, and drinking and driving. Photo radar does not address this. There are no demerit points, no-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The minister's time is up. Supplementary.

Mr Hoy: Minister, you have already allowed red light cameras, not because of safety but because of public pressure. Public safety never seems to come first.

Two recent coroners' juries investigating the horrific deaths in Carnage Alley called for photo radar. My own survey of over 5,000 confirms what a past province-wide survey said: more than 60% of Ontarians favour photo radar. The London Free Press and the Windsor Star have both done editorials calling for photo radar. If you won't implement photo radar for safety reasons, will you put aside your ideological excuses and implement photo radar because the public clearly wants it to improve safety on our highways?

Hon Mr Turnbull: As I've said, it doesn't address 90% of aggressive driving: rapid lane changes, tailgating and drinking and driving. You're obviously not interested in that. We are interested in it.

Let me further say what Jim Bradley said a little while ago: "I simply believe that the primary purpose of photo radar is without a doubt to get money for the Ontario government." We don't agree with it. We believe in proper enforcement. That's why we've increased policing on that stretch of the highway, and it's working.

LIVING LEGACY

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I hear consistently from many of my constituents in Thornhill that they are very concerned about the state of Ontario's natural environment. I'm pleased to tell them about our government's proactive stance on these issues.

Minister, I understand at the Don Valley brickworks last Thursday you and the Premier made a rather substantial commitment to implement the existing mandate of Ontario's Living Legacy, the largest single expansion of parks and protected areas in Ontario's history, and to expand upon that mandate as well. While Ontario's Living Legacy allows for 378 new parks and protected areas, bringing to 650 the number of parks and protected areas across the province, an area about the size of all of Ontario south of Algonquin Park, I understand last week's announcement allowed for further protection down in southern Ontario. Minister, can you tell us more about this expansion?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for Thornhill for the question. I was very pleased to participate in the announcement last week. Over a year ago, the Premier announced the largest-ever expansion of parks in the history of Ontario.

Last week we made an announcement that was over $100 million to make this a reality and to take the Living Legacy and spread it to southern Ontario. It was a fabulous announcement.

The member asks about some of the land acquisitions in southern Ontario. We now have an ecological land acquisition program, which we've cleverly called ELAP.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Snobelen: All of the members now have that one, Mr Speaker. That will help us acquire ecologically significant lands in southern Ontario and add to Ontario's Living Legacy.

Mrs Molinari: I appreciate that Ontario's Living Legacy is expanding beyond its original goals and is now poised to grow in scope, to reach down into southern Ontario.

Now we know how the area of Living Legacy has grown, I understand the mandate of Living Legacy has grown as well. For instance, on Thursday there was mention of a new commitment to youth programs. This was of particular interest to me as over a hundred young people in my riding of Thornhill are involved in a new scouting program. They are the first Four Arrows Baden-Powell Wilderness Group, and they are working with the Ministry of Natural Resources to adopt a forest for stewardship in the Parry Sound area.

We know the purpose of Ontario's Living Legacy is to ensure the natural beauty of all we take for granted is there for future generations to enjoy. Can you tell us how, with last week's announcement, you are involving young people in making the Living Legacy a reality and how even more young people from my riding can become involved?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, I thank the member from Thornhill for the question. At the announcement last week, the Premier was joined by young people from across Ontario who had participated in the Ontario Rangers program or the Ontario stewardship rangers program. Part of the announcement was a $10-million fund for youth employment this year and $10 million next year, so we can get more of Ontario's youth involved in creating this Living Legacy for future generations.

Those programs include Ontario Rangers, which has been around for decades; a new program called Ontario stewardship rangers so that young people from urban areas can help with the rivers, watersheds and natural resources in their local areas, and the internship program, a co-op program for young people.

In answer to the member's question, for those who have access to the Internet, we have www.youthjobs.gov.on.ca, and for those like the Minister of Labour who cannot yet access the Internet, we have 1-888-JOBGROW.

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. Recently the Provincial Auditor pointed out that your ministry paid the operator of Project Turnaround, a youth offender boot camp in Barrie, $400,000 over and above the agreed amount specified in the signed contract between the operator and the ministry. The auditor also points out that the contract did not reveal any provisions for payouts beyond the contract price.

It would appear to me that the contract is a contract, and it was signed by the Ministry of Correctional Services. Why did this happen, Minister? Would you describe an adjustment of almost a half-million dollars as financially responsible?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I say to the member opposite that I thank him very much for the question because it allows me an opportunity to clarify what exactly we did with that particular expenditure.

We did pay that money out because it was our obligation to provide the operator with a safe and secure environment to operate the correctional facility in. This government takes its commitment to provide safe and secure institutions very seriously.

Our commitment and our obligation to the operator of that facility was to provide a safe and secure institution, and where it was indicated that we had to spend money to maintain that facility so that it was safe and secure, we honoured our commitment. We put our money where our mouth was because that's our commitment to public safety in this province: to make sure we have safe and secure institutions for all of the institutions across the province, whether they be adult offenders or young offenders and no matter who's operating them.

Mr Levac: It's interesting that a contract isn't a contract. It simply means now that if you want to spend more money, you just have to go to the minister and he'll fill the bill. I'm very concerned about what's going to happen in the privatizied situation, where these people are making it for-profit.

Mr Minister, the Auditor General also points out that your ministry was overpaying the contractor of Camp Turnaround by $24,000 per year for after-care services, that is, verifying invoices against what the contract has coming. The error was apparently continued until the auditor found it and brought it to your attention, and then you finally stopped it.

What's going to stop you from doing that with the privateers? Are you going to wait for them to build up a million dollars before you have to pay them back? Minister, do you not consider that the overpayments of this kind are financially acceptable procedures in order to rectify this situation? How are you going to get those funds back from a privateer?

Hon Mr Sampson: I thank the member for the question. The $24,000 payment he's talking about was indeed corrected, that's correct. It was a challenge with this ministry to follow all of the after-care programs that that particular provider was providing. We were prepared to ensure that those payments were made where appropriate, and where they weren't appropriate, we've stopped those payments.

But as it relates to the security upgrades, the member says he can't find an obligation for us to do that in the contract. That's because that's an operating contract. I say to the member opposite, before you delve down this road of commenting and criticizing operating contracts and ownership contracts, why don't you take two seconds and try to understand what exactly it is you're speaking to.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Many of my constituents have recently received a property value reassessment notice in the mail. In most cases the assessed value of their homes has shown an increase. Many homeowners are worried that, as a result, they will see substantial increases in their property tax bills.

Minister, are property tax bills going to go up as a result of these higher assessments?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, there's two things that comprise people's real estate taxes. One is the assessment on your property, the other of course is the tax rate or the mill rate that's applied to them. For example, in a particular municipality, if assessments have gone up 20%, on average, the municipality can raise next year exactly the same amount of revenue it raised this year by lowering the tax rate or the mill rate by 20%. It would net them the same amount of revenue. So because your assessment has gone up does not mean that your tax bill is going to go up.

If the municipality wants to generate more revenue than it's spending this year or if it wants to spend more revenue next year, then that's a decision for each municipality to make and they have to be accountable for it.

Mr Chudleigh: I appreciate your answer. I'd also like to ask, on behalf of several of my constituents, how the value of their property assessment was arrived at and what actions they can take if they disagree with that assessment.

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the assessment notices that individuals and businesses are receiving now were calculated by the current value as of June 30, 1999. They were calculated by the Ontario Property Assessment Corp, which has been municipally owned and operated since December 17, 1998. That's how that has happened. That's the amount people will be paying taxes on in the calendar years 2001 and 2002. They're responsible for property assessment. It used to be the responsibility of the provincial government. It has been taken over by the municipalities in Ontario.

If an individual disagrees with his or her assessment, they can simply file an appeal, in the appropriate period of time, to their assessment notice.

HOMELESSNESS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I wonder if he's still available.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Very quickly, if somebody could grab the Minister of Housing. Here he comes. Proceed.

Applause.

Ms Churley: Thank you very much for that applause.

Minister, 17 homeless people who live on the waterfront have been given a 17-day reprieve from eviction. But the Ministry of the Environment still wants to evict them because it's worried about the health effects of an environmental contaminant near the site, as are we. The ministry says living on the waterfront is hazardous to the health of the homeless people living there. But everybody knows that being homeless, whether you sleep in a shelter or on the street, is hazardous to your health.

Medical studies have shown that homelessness kills people, and we've seen the tragic evidence here in Toronto on our streets. When are you going to treat that health threat seriously and find those homeless people some real housing?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As the honourable member has correctly alluded to, this is a multi-faceted issue. No one wants to see persons who have no other choice but to live on the streets. That is not only an issue of housing, it's an issue of health care, it's an issue of socio-economic status and it's an issue of mental health, which is precisely why my colleague, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, has announced the next phase of mental health supports for those who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. This is precisely why that part of the formulation has to be taken into account.

But I would agree with the honourable member that issues of health and safety have to come first, which is precisely why just two weeks ago I and Minister Baird announced, on behalf of the government, that Princess Margaret Hospital was going to be opened for those who are homeless or at risk of being homeless.

Ms Churley: It seems like opening homeless shelters is the only game in town right now, and that just isn't good enough. Your housing policy doesn't build any new housing. In fact, your gutting of rent control has led to people losing their homes. It's just wonderful to watch how the federal Liberals and the Conservatives dance together on this issue. The Liberals offer housing subsidies contingent on the province paying half, but if the Liberals were serious-they know you're not going to pay your share of that-they should put up the full amount themselves.

When are you going to realize that your aversion to building housing is costing people their lives? What is it going to take? How many more dead bodies do we have to see on the streets of Toronto before you change your policy on housing and actually build some desperately needed housing in this province?

Hon Mr Clement: In fact, we have changed the old, failed policies of the NDP government when it came to affordable housing. It was called not-for-profit housing, but the lawyers made a profit and the architects made a profit and the planners made a profit, and it was not the best way to provide the kind of affordable housing that we need for our citizens.

I would agree with the honourable member that a long-term approach is needed, which is why we've changed the building code for the better, why we've reduced the cost of construction materials for affordable housing.

If the honourable member feels as strongly as she does, which she does on this issue-I agree with her-let's, she and I, work together to convince the federal Liberal government, which is in office for the next day or so, that it is time for a long-term, meaningful strategy; not quick fixes, not a little money here or there just to stem the bubbling tide, but long-term fixes that are going to fix the problem through the tax code, through the proper incentives to build the affordable housing that we had even 20 years ago in this country. I'm quite willing to work with the caucus to get that done.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Ontario Legislature and it deals with northerners demanding the Harris government eliminate the health care apartheid and the discrimination they're practising in the province of Ontario today.

"Whereas the northern health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners forced to travel for cancer care while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation"-that's discrimination;

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location"-and that's a fact;

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding" and are against health care apartheid;

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province;

"Whereas we," the people who have signed this petition, "support the efforts of ... OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, northeast region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and eliminate the health care apartheid and the discrimination which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

Of course I agree with this petition and affix my signature to it.

VETERINARY SERVICES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Hastings, Glengarry, Frontenac and Addington.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): It's Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the north Hastings community of Bancroft and the surrounding area is a predominantly rural geographic area that faces many of the same challenges that northern communities contend with, whereby the role of livestock plays a significant part of that economy; and

"Whereas the community is experiencing a crisis due to the fact that their veterinarian for large animals has indicated he can no longer provide services to the Bancroft area, and there are no immediate alternatives for animal care within their geographic area; and

"Whereas the only known incentive program for veterinarians is funded through the Ministry of Northern Affairs and Development;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature Assembly of Ontario to urge the Ministry of Northern Affairs and Development and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to work together to find a solution to this immediate crisis. We call on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce measures that would create incentives for veterinarians to practise within the described northern and rural communities in order to abate this emergency situation and to prevent similar crises in the future."

I'm happy to sign my name to this petition.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition signed by hundreds of constituents addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas it has been determined that recent funding allocations to the developmental services sector in the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent and Windsor-Essex have been determined to be grossly inadequate to meet critical and urgent needs" of these communities;

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

"That the Ministry of Community and Social Services immediately review the funding allocations to the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent and Windsor-Essex, and provide funding in keeping with the requests made by families and/or their agents."

In full support of this, I sign my signature.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Again, petitions related to the inadequacy of the northern health travel grant. They continue to come in.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and, therefore, that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographical locations;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in their communities."

Hundreds of people have signed these petitions. I am once again glad to add my name to this petition.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my distinct pleasure to read a petition and support that petition presented by the Catholic Women's League of Canada, Joan Lonergan, sent to me and to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death in North America; and

"Whereas studies conducted in the city of Toronto, the United States and Great Britain have reported that drivers using cellular phones while operating a vehicle significantly increases the risk of collisions; and

"Whereas people talking on cellular phones while driving may cause a 34% higher risk of having an accident;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ban the use of hand-held cellular phones, portable computers and fax machines while operating a motor vehicle. We further respectfully request that Bill 102"-Bill 1-O'Toole-"An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while driving on a highway, be passed unanimously by all members of provincial Parliament of Ontario."

I'm pleased to support this petition from my constituents.

PHOTO RADAR

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Mike Harris made the decision in 1995 to cancel the Ontario government's photo radar pilot project before it could be properly completed; and

"Whereas two Ontario coroners' juries in the last year, including the jury investigating traffic fatalities on Highway 401 between Windsor and London in September 1999, have called for the reintroduction of photo radar on that stretch of Carnage Alley; and

"Whereas studies show that the use of photo radar in many jurisdictions, including British Columbia, Alberta, Australia, many European countries and several American states, does have a marked impact in preventing speeding and improving road and highway safety, from a 16% decrease in fatalities in BC, to a 49% decrease in fatalities in Victoria, Australia; and

"Whereas photo radar is supported by the RCMP, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, several police departments, including many local Ontario Provincial Police constables and many road safety groups;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario government to demand that the Ministry of Transportation reinstate photo radar on dangerous stretches of provincial and municipal highways and streets as identified by police. The top priority should be Carnage Alley, the

section of the 401 between Windsor and London, and all revenues from photo radar should be directed to putting more police on our roads and highways to combat aggressive driving."

It's signed by a number of residents from St Marys, and I affix my signature to it.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Again, it's my distinct pleasure to present these petitions on behalf of the people not just of my riding, but of the province of Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

"Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year-of-manufacture licence plates; and

"Whereas Durham MPP John R. O'Toole and former MPP John Parker have worked together to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

"Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull as Minister of Transportation has the power to change the existing regulation"-

Interjection: And he hasn't yet?

Mr O'Toole: He hasn't yet.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to immediately pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act" to allow vintage auto enthusiasts to use year of manufacturing licence plates.

I'm going to endorse this, and I ask every member to raise this with the Minister of Transportation.

RAMSEY INDUSTRIAL ROAD

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition with 100 and some names from Dubreuilville.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ramsey Industrial Road from Sultan to Highway 144 is used by thousands of people annually;

"Whereas the Ramsey Industrial Road is a treacherous gravel road;

"Whereas thousands of people must use this road to travel for business, medical and personal reasons;

"Whereas the economic development of the area is strangled by the lack of a paved highway;

"Whereas the communities of Manitouwadge, White River, Hornepayne, Dubreuilville and Wawa all support the efforts made by Chapleau mayor Earle J. Freeborn to have this road upgraded;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and the Ontario government to immediately approve the paving and upgrading of the Ramsey Industrial Road to a provincial highway."

I agree with this and I affix my signature.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): This is kind of a marathon; this is my third petition. With your indulgence, this is being presented on behalf of the members of the Huron Wire Wheel Model A Owners of Canada Inc and was specifically presented to me by R.C. Atkinson, general delivery, Kilworth, Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

"Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates; and

"Whereas Durham MPP John R. O'Toole and former MPP John Parker have worked together tirelessly to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

"Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull as Minister of Transportation has the power to change the existing regulation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to immediately pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act" to use vintage licence plates on vintage automobiles.

I'm pleased to present this on behalf of my constituents.

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Mr Speaker, I move adjournment of the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Call in the members. There will be up to a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1509 to 1539.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Bartolucci has moved adjournment of the House.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until counted by the Clerk.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 19; the nays are 44.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost. I would ask the member for Windsor-St Clair if he had something that he wanted to withdraw.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Further petitions?

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham) : As unaccustomed as I am, I'm very pleased to read a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham, more specifically, Joan Lonergan. I've also got support for this from Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino and the Toronto Police Association's Craig Bromell.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death in North America; and

"Whereas studies conducted in the city of Toronto, the United States and Great Britain have reported that drivers using cellular phones while operating a vehicle significantly increases the risk of collisions; and

"Whereas people talking on cellular phones while driving may cause a 34% higher risk of having an accident;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ban the use of hand-held cellular phones, portable computers and fax machines while operating a motor vehicle. We further respectfully request that Bill 102,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while driving on a highway, be passed unanimously by all members of provincial assembly of Ontario."

I'm very pleased to sign and support this very important piece of legislation that I propose to bring up, probably about December 12.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the northern health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners forced to travel for cancer care while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation;

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province; and

"Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care, founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and eliminate the health care apartheid which exists presently in the province of Ontario and to ensure that we do not have the kind of two-tiered privatized health care system advocated by Stockwell Day and the Alliance."

I affix my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL (INDUSTRIE DE LA CONSTRUCTION)

Mr Stockwell moved third reading of the following bill: Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 in relation to the construction industry / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait à l'industrie de la construction.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I am pleased to lead off the debate on the third reading of Bill 69. It is a piece of legislation that I'd like to work through with my notes here, starting on the residential portion of the GTA

section and moving through.

Starting in the GTA residential section, this was an interesting part of the legislation that was, I think, reasonably accepted by both builders of residential housing and the unions within the marketplace that supplied the labour on the union sites for residential housing. The rationale for this bill at that time began pretty much with the fact that there was a strike in 1998, I believe.

If I can explain it to you, it's much like a domino effect in the residential marketplace. There are many, many trades that work on a residential housing site. There are drywallers, framers, concrete folks and all those different unions that get together to build residential housing. They don't collectively negotiate as a package; they individually negotiate as a union. I'm working from memory here, but there is in the neighbourhood of 25 or 26 unions that typically work a residential housing market site.

So if there is to be labour peace in those marketplaces, then you must negotiate collectively with each and every individual union. By having to negotiate collectively, you then have a situation where if each particular contract is staggered over a period of time, you could potentially end up in a very long and protracted strike collectively but individually have very short strikes. That's exactly what happened in 1998. What would happen is that one of the unions-the carpenters, for instance-would go on strike for two weeks.

When they would negotiate a settlement with their employers, the very next day the electricians would go on strike, and they would go on for a couple weeks or a few weeks. When they collectively negotiated their agreement, the very next day the framers would go out. You get the sense of what's going to happen. What happens is that you have collectively so many unions negotiating at different times, you end up with a situation with a four- or five- or six-month strike, much like what happened in 1998.

Obviously, this is not beneficial for the workers and it's not beneficial for the builders. None of the workers really wanted to go on strike for four or five months, but their strike was two or three weeks. Then ultimately, if they settled theirs, there was no work to do on the site because another trade was out, and it became very protracted, very awkward and very difficult. Mostly everyone was working in good faith. It's just that the process didn't work so they could collectively come to an agreement.

In the summer of last year there was an opportunity between the builders of the greater Toronto area and the unions representing collectively all the unions to see if we could sit down and work out a few things on the residential side. What we seemed to be working toward was one specific and very clear issue that needed to be established. We needed a common expiry date for all of the collective agreements. So if there were 24 or 25 unions represented in the residential building marketplace, we needed to find a common expiration date.

We seemed to arrive at that fairly reasonably. The unions themselves seemed to be in agreement with this. They understood the same things the builders understood, that going on strike for two weeks shouldn't mean that you're not working for five months. Of course, the building market in Canada is different than some other places in the world because you have so much time to build and pour foundations etc. Those times obviously are when the weather is warmer. These strikes happened right in the peak building periods. I believe they started in May and went through May, June, July, August and September, which is the peak building period for the residential marketplace.

Adding further difficulty to it was that it was a very busy marketplace. People were buying homes. The domino effect on that side, simply put, was that people would buy homes providing they would get delivery of their house on, say, July 1. They would make the appropriate arrangements to either sell their house or give notice on their rental apartment or move out of some place and be prepared to move in for July 1, and their homes weren't ready. It wasn't that they weren't even ready for July 1.

If you happened to be buying for May 1, your home wouldn't be ready until possibly September 30 or even later, because they didn't get back to work until some time in September. Obviously, there was a huge concern, not just with the unions and the builders, but the number of Ontarians who went out and bought these homes predicated on the fact they be allowed to close on certain dates. They were pushed back and it was just horrendous. They were selling their homes, they had to move out and they had no place to go.

Or they had given notice on their apartments, had to move out of their rental apartments and had no place to go.

It was a very, very difficult situation. I will give full measure to the unions. I think they negotiated in good faith and came to this conclusion, which Bill 69 speaks to. The conclusion of Bill 69, in the residential section, was very specifically that-

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You had the gun to their heads.

Hon Mr Stockwell: No, this is a whole different section, I say to the member for St Catharines. There is an appropriate time to actually come in with that quip. It just was inappropriate. You're much like the guy who sits in the gallery who thinks they've seen the play before and then shouts out the line and it wasn't the line. It's really embarrassing. I guess that's the situation for you right now.

The fact remains-

Mr Bradley: We know it's coming.

Hon Mr Stockwell: There he goes again. He's not bashful, that Mr Bradley. Even though he yells out the wrong line, he's right back with the next one that's equally inappropriate.

What happened is-

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: And he's got a new friend back there too, Mr McMeekin. He's the privatization mayor.

What we have here now is a situation where there was a common agreement that April 30 should be the date that these collective agreements expire en masse. Before April 30, there is a lead-up negotiation period. We're moving into a negotiating period-I think it's 2001, or it could be 2000-and what I think is going to happen is that a lot of these things are going to settle. That's really, really good for the industry if a lot of those negotiated settlements get settled before the 30th.

But what the unions and the builders have agreed to is this: if you haven't settled your collective agreement-and this was not forced on them by the government, I might add. This was actually an industry-based solution. If you've reached April 30 and you don't have a collective agreement, then you can go on strike. I never want to see the right to strike taken away from them. They go on strike.

But the agreement by the unions and the parties is that you can only have a 45-day strike, meaning that once it gets to 45 days, June 15, then all parties agree beforehand-union and management all agree, the builders all agree-that they will go to binding arbitration to settle the strike. Final offer binding arbitration is really quite good. It just means you submit your application, the union submits their application and an arbitrator decides who's right.

That way we've limited the strike period in the residential building sections from potentially five, six or seven months to 45 days, by agreement. Those homebuilders out there can go about building their homes and delivering them to the people who have bought them in a timely and reasonable manner. The unions can take their strike action and negotiate collective agreements, but not find themselves on a two- or three-week strike that somehow trips its way up to a four- or five-month strike. They didn't want to lose the money, and it seems like a really good industry-based solution.

That was the residential

section of the bill. The bill is also repealable. There is a grandfather clause in the bill. That means basically that they're going to try it this time, meaning the industry involvement is that we're going to attempt to see if we can make this bill work this time, and if it doesn't work, the legislation dies. But if it does work, they can petition the government back and say, "Look, this works so well, we'd like you to enshrine it into law." So this was not an enforced issue. This was an agreement by the industry. We understood that they were going to work toward this. We accepted their ideas.

We're saying, "If it doesn't work, we don't want to saddle you with a program that doesn't work, but if it does work, you let us know and we'll remove the sunset clause and we'll put it in there full-time."

That was the residential portion of the bill.

The residential portion of the bill was far less complex than the industrial-commercial side of the negotiations. That was a little more difficult. The difficulty with the industrial-commercial was that they had a long-standing history with respect to negotiations, and they negotiated not just within the confines of the GTA and not just within the confines of Toronto. They would actually negotiate province-wide.

The issue on the province-wide negotiations was that it was creating a higher key of negotiated settlements that were not applicable to other regions within the province. That happens. Many people on that side of the House often say to us, when we draft legislation and try to implement it, "You're using a one-size-fits-all approach." Mr Bradley has often said we use a one-size-fits-all approach.

Mr Bradley: That's the one-size-fits-all approach.

Hon Mr Stockwell: That's the one-size-fits-all approach. Now you're on theme. That's good.

In this instance, that is absolutely correct. The negotiations for all the industrial-commercial sector took place on a province-wide basis. Whatever negotiated settlement they reached in Toronto was then applicable to the entire province.

Some of the builders and some of the sub-contractors and general contractors around the province were suggesting to the government that by having this one-size-fits-all approach, you were negotiating collective agreements in the Toronto region that were not very practical or applicable to the regions they happened to work within, be it Sudbury, St Catharines or parts in between.

So we began a long and rather protracted period of negotiations to see if we could find a solution to the dilemma we found ourselves in. We began the negotiations because many years earlier, in the late 1970s-it could have even been before that-there were about 270-odd general contractors in Ontario. Those general contractors were bound by working agreements they got into for one year in one small region of the province, which were then extended around the province by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

At the time, it came down to simply this: those specific general contractors negotiated for time-limited union agreements for one year in one geographical region of the province. One of the unions then took them to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and suggested that if any of those general contractors had signed those kinds of agreements, they be obliged to be union contractors for the rest of their lives, and that those regional agreements applied to the province of Ontario. Quite honestly, the Ontario Labour Relations Board then made a decision that said, "Yes, that's how it should be."

I don't really think that was a good decision at the time, simply because they had never truly been unionized right across the province. There hadn't been a union, there hadn't been a drive, there hadn't been a vote, there hadn't been a majority. It was actually just a backdoor approach through the Ontario Labour Relations Board that somehow, through legal arguments, they should be bound by collective agreements and that those binding collective agreements should apply right across the province. Even if they were only doing work in one region, like Toronto, somehow they were now bound right around the province.

The general contractors at the time numbered-there are variations on this, but 274 is the number I seem to come up with. Some suggest it was less-and even those who suggest it was less don't suggest it was significantly less; they may say 250-and some say it was more. What has happened since is that slowly but surely-and this is not debatable; I think everyone is in agreement-the number of general contractors has been reduced from the 274 range to eight.

You have to realize that any kind of business which over 20 to 30 years goes from 274 viable entities competing for public work and private sector construction dollars, to eight, has got to say there's something wrong. There's something not working within that sector which is slowly but surely squeezing the number of unionized general contractors out of the business.

By decreasing the number of general contractors from that 274 number or thereabouts to eight, you also were squeezing the number of union-available jobs in certain regions around this province and slowly but surely you were reducing the number of unionized construction sites. There wasn't a lot of debate about that either.

What was happening was that they were negotiating collective agreements province-wide. They would negotiate a dollar value in Toronto for, pick a trade, X trade, for 28 bucks an hour, 26 bucks an hour, it doesn't matter. They then would apply those dollars that were Toronto-based to areas around the province. What was becoming more and more apparent, when you saw the figures and saw the numbers and saw the number of men and women who were working out of those union halls, was that these dollars were unsustainable in certain parts of the province.

What then became obvious was that as the union jobs were shrinking and as the union job numbers were getting smaller, the non-union construction sector was picking up the difference. This was a crunch that I think we or I saw myself-it was becoming patently obvious too. I know members opposite would argue with me, but it was becoming patently obvious. As you went to union halls and talked to business managers and examined the statistical analysis outside the Toronto region, fewer and fewer and fewer men from the union halls were on the site working than they were 15, 20, 30 years ago.

It was patently clear, because you used to have 274 general contractors who were unionized and it's come down to eight. Obviously, something was going wrong.

Now, there was some talk about what they used to call a three-and-out factor. They were trying to negotiate that. Three and out simply meant that if you didn't hire a unionized worker for three years, you'd automatically be decertified. They couldn't seem to get an agreement on that between the union and the general contractors. Also, I might add, the sub-contractors were involved in this as well.

There was a lot of debate about how they would go about rectifying this problem. Some very aggressive people out there were suggesting we abolish 1(4), which is the related employer. Just a brief explanation: the abolition of 1(4) would mean that a general contractor that was unionized could also run a non-unionized sister company that would compete with the unionized company.

The fear from the unions is fairly clear: if you have a general contractor that runs a union company and they also are allowed to set up under the same umbrella-the same ownership, the same financing-a non-union company, it wouldn't be long before that person would be making no bids on the union side of things; they'd just be bidding on the non-union side of things and that unionized company would go out of business.

That was a compelling argument offered up from the unions. Mr Dillon was vociferous, absolutely vociferous. He said, "This is not acceptable. We will never accept an abolition of 1(4)." It was a compelling argument, and I must say, I think the argument made sense. I agreed with him, much to the consternation of the general contractors, the unionized general contractors and the unionized subcontractors. I say to you members across the floor and to my caucus mates, who know this very well: much to the consternation of those unionized general contractors and the unionized subcontractors.

So if we understand that we had a competitiveness problem and were losing work for the unionized contractor, subcontractor and unionized worker around the province, and there's absolutely no way, through the unionized operation, we were prepared to relent on the abolition of 1(4), we were then stuck in a very difficult situation. We then had to negotiate something different. Now, I understand the members opposite don't like the different parts we negotiated. I understand that they think that it was somehow unreasonable or unfair.

But I want to go on the record here today to say that if we had maintained the status quo, if we had made no changes and Bill 69 never occurred, it was an absolute guarantee that gradually and slowly the unionized construction companies, subcontracting companies and unionized workers were being squeezed out of the construction market.

Now, listen. In a good market there's work, like today, but I'll tell you, go back a few years when the NDP were in power. The unionized construction companies, subcontractors and workers were starving for work and they were losing work to non-unionized companies because of the competitiveness issue with respect to the wage packet.

I was left in a difficult situation. I had, on the one side, the general contractors and subcontractors whose position was, "I want to see abolition of 1(4)." On the other side, I had the unions who said, "If you abolish 1(4), that's holy war. We won't accept it. There's no way we'll go along with it." But we were watching the contracting situation for unionized workers sinking slowly into the sea. Frankly, I didn't think that was good.

I didn't think that was good for the province because I know that, on balance, unionized construction sites are more efficient, they're safer and they provide more experienced and trained workers. We all agree with that. You won't get an argument from this side either.

But the fact remains that if you allowed the status quo to maintain, you would slowly see no unionized construction sites. So the status quo argument across the floor is a little misleading. It's a red herring. It's a salve for the rank-and-file unionized member. "They think, because I'm saying the status quo should be maintained, somehow you as rank-and-file members within the union movement will now rally your support around me because I'm calling for no change at all. Sure, I'll watch you lose your job; sure, I'll watch these companies go out of business; sure, we went from 274 to eight.

But I've created this panacea, this red herring, this Shangri-La that says as long as you people think I'm serving you, then I'll let you think I'm serving you." That's the approach, and that wasn't the approach I was prepared to take. So negotiations opened up with respect to how we deal with this issue.

The first thing I decided in this negotiation process-I decided, the government decided, the caucus, the cabinet decided-is we needed to determine-

Mr Bradley: Guy Giorno decided.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'm still curious about your position on photo radar. I'm going to be interested to see how you wiggle around that. But that's for another day.

I was very interested to find out what the facts were. We actually commissioned a gentleman, Mr Armstrong. Mr Armstrong was given the responsibility to go out and just get the facts. He used to be the Deputy Minister of Labour, a very balanced, fair and reasonable guy, and this was a person who was accepted by all parties. He was accepted by the unions, he was accepted by the generals and he was accepted by the non. He went out and he just got the facts. He produced a report, a paper that was submitted to me that was voluminous but also extremely important because it laid away the issues that were on the margins.

It just dealt with the issues that we needed to deal with, the facts according to Mr Armstrong.

The first thing we did, before we actually went into much in the way of negotiations, is we asked all parties to read this report, bring back any of their concerns or questions, tell us what they agreed with or what they didn't agree with, have the debate, and then let's decide what the facts are. We did that, and I think we came to a reasonably swift conclusion that Mr Armstrong did a wonderful job and those are fundamentally the facts. So we had the facts before us.

What we needed to do, in my opinion, was create an opportunity that the unions may maintain their 1(4) exclusion, negotiate and have the right to strike, withdraw services, but also have the capacity within this process to negotiate collective agreements around the province that may be more tailored to their community so that work that's tendered in that community, be it commercial, industrial, government or whatever-because they have this capacity to negotiate different agreements, they have a better chance of getting the work; thereby, if they have a better chance of getting the work, of hiring subcontracting unions and hiring union membership. That was the first test.

That test worked. We reached the stage where we had a situation where the negotiations were agreed. There would be a province-wide negotiated agreement that would take place at the same time every three years and they would negotiate the payment levels for all the trades at that table. They could strike if they wanted to strike. They could do whatever they wanted to do. They could do anything they could do in the past at that central table and set the province-wide rates.

Then what we allowed to happen was that in regions where certain parts of the province felt they weren't competitive based on that province-wide agreement, they had the capacity to file before an arbitrator a process much like what the residential construction guys agreed to, a process where they would try and negotiate a settlement that would create more competitiveness in that sector and then they would have an arbitrator rule on whose application they'd pick that would create more competitiveness.

The idea was simply put. There was no benefit outside the Toronto region for unionized general contractors and unionized subcontractors to lose bids on purpose. There was no benefit for them in that. It wouldn't make any sense to actually make a bid and lose it on purpose. They weren't making this stuff up. They weren't getting the work.

By putting this caveat in, we created an opportunity in Timmins or in Sudbury or in Kingston to allow them to negotiate a separate agreement that would create a more competitive workforce, that would allow them to bid on work, win work that they weren't winning, and thereby put subcontractors to work and hire men from the hiring hall. Ultimately, that was a good decision.

There was another caveat. The other caveat was that at no time could a unionized subcontractor or general contractor have anybody work on the site who was not a union member. I know what bothers the rank-and-file membership. What bothers the rank-and-file membership are a couple of things: first, the clause that allows for mobility, and the second

part is the name-hiring clause.

I understand that causes them concern, because we took this around the province and we met and had public hearings with groups around the province and that often came up. But where there's give-and-take, there's got to be a quid pro quo. If, on the one side, the unions insist-which they did-that all people who work on a unionized construction site must be card-carrying members of a union, then the comeback from the subcontractors was, "Well, that's fine. That's OK.

We accept the fact that everybody who works on a unionized construction site must be a union member, but we demand to have more control over what union members work on the site." That was their position. Their position was that some percentage of that site should be allowed to have some mobility from where I live to bring to that site.

That's a concern for the local hiring hall, but the fact remains that the subcontractor wasn't saying you had to have a non-union guy on the site. All they were saying was, "I should be allowed to bring 40% of the unionized workers I work with every day, who understand my process, my programs and my work schedule, to this site where I've won the contract." Again, it's a quid pro quo. As many as can travel from Sudbury to Windsor can also travel from Windsor to Sudbury. Anybody who lives in Kingston and wants to work in Toronto can win the contract and go from Kingston to Toronto.

The demand wasn't that a non-union worker work next to a union worker. The demand was, simply put, that I get to bring 40% to the site, that I bring union workers from my company.

The second issue was that if you win a job in a local community, the person who wins the job should be allowed to name-hire some percentage of people off the list from the hiring hall. I understand that cuts hard against the business managers. I understand they don't like that because the control at the union hall is that the business manager controls who goes to the site. It's a truism, and it's been like that for many years. You elect your business manager and the business manager goes down the list and decides who's going to be working the next day.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order. I just wanted to say that we welcome any guest to be here. We have rules for ourselves and we have rules for our guests. As you can see, we as members take some latitude when we speak, and make interruptions. I can tell you that there is absolutely no tolerance for any kind of demonstration, any kind of speaking out, from those of you who visit us. I'd like to have you here, I'd like to give you that opportunity, but there will be absolutely no demonstrations, no talking, nothing of any kind.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: I would also like to say that if somebody wants to say something, you have to do that outside. If you try me, I'll clear the entire gallery if I can't identify who it is.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Labour.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Stop provoking them, Chris.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Stop provoking them? I don't think I've said anything provocative. I'm trying to read and put across what I think is a balanced view. If you feel it's not, it's an opportunity-

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I say to the mayor for privatization that you have your opportunity to get up and respond. I don't dispute that you have that opportunity, and I encourage you to a great extent. I frankly don't think you know what you're talking about, but that's fine.

Ms Churley: That's your arrogance speaking again. You think you know it all, don't you?

Hon Mr Stockwell: You're suggesting that I'm being provocative. I suggest to you that's your arrogance speaking.

Ms Churley: I know a damned sight more about this issue than you do.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I suggest you don't.

Simply put, the situation is that the subcontracting trades wanted the opportunity to go and name-hire-

Ms Churley: You guys are so patronizing.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Toronto-Danforth, come to order.