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

October 5, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEALS ON WHEELS

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

SENIORS' HEALTH INSURANCE

PLANT CLOSURE

FOREST INDUSTRY

OLIVER HODGES

POLITICAL PARTY LEADERS

FOOD DRIVE

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

CANCER TREATMENT

SMALL BUSINESS

HEALTH CARDS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

POLICE COMPLAINTS

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

MIDWIFERY

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

VISITOR

CORRECTION

EDUCATION FINANCING

GO TRANSIT

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

LONG-TERM CARE

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

HEALTH CARDS

CASINO GAMBLING

GO TRANSIT

HEALTH CARE

ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT, 1993

INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL ASSESSORS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

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

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

VITAL SERVICES FOR TENANTS

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MEALS ON WHEELS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a very important service that is going on in communities across the province. This is Meals on Wheels Week, and it was with great pleasure that I was able to partake in this program in Dryden only yesterday.

I joined Gordon and Norma Lyle of Dryden, who are volunteers from Dryden United Church, to deliver meals to Dr Danny, who is able, partially through this program, to remain in his home in Dryden. From Dr Danny's we went to the Riverview Apartments. Here we met both Mrs McGillary and Mrs Campbell, who were looking forward to our visit and their afternoon meal. From there it was back to Patricia Gardens, the minimal care institution in Dryden, to have lunch, which was the same as the one we had just delivered: the end of a very delightful morning.

I cannot say enough about this program, one which assists seniors to remain in their homes and, as importantly, one which brings the community closer together with its seniors. Allow me to congratulate those who administer and, more importantly, those who volunteer their time to make Meals on Wheels the success it is not only in Dryden but in the Kenora riding and across this province.

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, I'm pleased to rise in recognition and support of National AIDS Awareness Week in Ontario.

In communities throughout Ontario, organizers are conducting activities that range from benefit concerts, walkathons, public forums and candlelight vigils. The purpose of these events is to do what desperately needs to be done, and that's heighten awareness of one of Canada's biggest killers, HIV and AIDS. Towards this end, the slogan for National AIDS Awareness Week, "Strong Lives -- Strong Communities," promotes the badly needed message that community action and partnership are keys to confronting HIV and AIDS.

While researchers and governments grope for solutions, the deadly HIV killer continues to hover like a black cloud, bringing death to thousands of people in our neighbourhoods and communities. To date, there are 8,232 reported cases of AIDS in Canada. From these cases, 40% are residents of Ontario.

While the NDP continues to issue news releases outlining the government's efforts to assist people living with AIDS, these individuals are being denied access to essential prescription drugs. Consequently, the government is stripping people living with AIDS of their dignity by forcing them to pay for drugs or go on social assistance and welfare.

AIDS affects us all: our families, our friends and our neighbours. Therefore, we must work in partnership and with great haste to find a cure for this lethal disease. I urge all members of this assembly and all people of Ontario to lend their support in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

SENIORS' HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Health insurance costs for staying in Florida and other American states are very much on the minds of many seniors. After a recent interview in Today's Seniors publication about this problem, I've received a number of phone calls. Among them were one from a man in his 60s who told me he was receiving regular checkups for bladder cancer, and another from a fit and active gentleman aged 87. Both, of course, find insurance prohibitive and are unable to continue their normal winter travels.

We should be looking for solutions for this situation which affects many people across the province. Could there not be reciprocal coverage between Ontario and Florida health plans? Taking into account the significant contribution that our visitors make to the Florida economy, this may not be such an unrealistic proposal. The state neither wants to deter visitors nor to take the risk of having to take care of any more uninsured than it is currently potentially liable for among its own citizens. I have not been able to discern what President Clinton's health reforms will provide for Americans when they travel. I believe that in the long term, reciprocity arrangements are inevitable.

It's a real burden to seniors to shop for insurance, with its unpredictable costs, and difficult to understand all the exclusions. The response to the Today's Seniors

article shows me how much demand there is for something to be done.

I'd be glad to keep on receiving calls at 281-2787. Members of the public might like to know that the Florida Department of Commerce office in Toronto can be reached at 926-1590.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I've a statement today that deals with the loss of jobs, not only in the Bruce riding but also in the Grey-Owen Sound riding of my colleague, Mr Murdoch.

It deals with the closing down of North American Furniture Group. It has to deal with the laying off of more than 100 people who have worked and given their all over the last two and a half years to try and make that furniture company go. It deals with a group of people who now feel the hurt and the pain that is associated with being part of the ownership group that came to save a company that had been left discarded over two years ago, along with so many other of the manufacturing operations in this province of ours.

The people who work there and gave their all on the line are now hurting because the Ontario Development Corp, as part of the group that was supporting them, has walked away even though they have a whole group of outstanding orders to fill. They are hurt because they've seen the Premier of this province go and visit the grand announcement of 50 new jobs in Cambridge, but he doesn't seem to have the time to come and speak and talk to the people, over 100, who have lost their jobs, because people have decided to walk away from these very honest and diligently working people.

Something is wrong when the Premier can take a day and go to Cambridge for 50 new jobs, but he cannot do anything with his government to save more than 100 jobs in the furniture factories of southwestern Ontario, which are devastated by the way this government is managing the affairs of the province.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I wish to advise this Legislative Assembly and the people of Lanark-Renfrew that the Ministry of Natural Resources, as of yesterday, scuttled 132 jobs in the village of Braeside.

Canadian Wood Products Inc was prepared to buy a sawmill in the village of Braeside until the Ministry of Natural Resources suddenly reneged on its agreement. The company established an understanding with the MNR that it could obtain a licence for the mill without crown allocations and would have to buy logs on the open market. Despite this understanding, the MNR has proceeded to use a scare tactic that would prevent the sale of logs to Canadian Wood Products.

As stated in a letter from A.J. Stewart, an official from the MNR, in his letter of September 20, "The Ministry of Natural Resources does not support the sale or processing of any Ontario crown logs in this mill" at Braeside.

The fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources stated in an open letter to the loggers that it does not support the sale of crown logs to the mill will clearly serve to instil fear in logging contractors who do not want to lose their licence from the crown.

Furthermore, I have a letter dated September 22 from the Ministry of Natural Resources which states, "Logs coming from crown sources are not to be processed in the mill." This is a clear contradiction of Mr Stewart's letter, which merely indicates that the government does not support the provision of crown logs.

I urge the Minister of Natural Resource to intercede and restore jobs to 132 families in Braeside.

OLIVER HODGES

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I want to pay tribute to Mr Oliver Hodges of Peterborough, who died on September 16 in his 79th year.

Oliver Hodges devoted his entire life to the labour and trade union movement and to making this a better and more peaceful world for all. He followed respectfully in the footsteps of J.S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas. He was a proud CCF municipal and provincial candidate in London and Hamilton in the 1940s, and in 1965 was the Ontario riding's NDP federal candidate.

His labour career spanned four decades, including 11 years, 1954 to 1965, as Canadian director, international executive board member of the United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, CLC. He was appointed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board in 1967 by the Ontario Federation of Labour, and served as a member until his retirement in 1982 when he came to Peterborough.

He was founding treasurer of the Peterborough Community Legal Centre and was an officer and member of the Peterborough NDP Provincial Constituency Association from 1984 to 1993, and also served a term as chair of Kawartha Ploughshares during the mid-1980s. I worked with him in all these groups.

Oliver was a loving husband, father and grandfather and a kind, unselfish and gentle man. He made a difference. We shall miss him.

POLITICAL PARTY LEADERS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Since the Legislature recessed early last August, the people of Ontario have had an opportunity to see how the leaders of Ontario's three political parties spent their summer.

Ontarians watched as Lyn McLeod met concerned residents all across this province, we heard about Bob Rae's trout fishing at his cottage, and we saw Mike Harris making all sorts of new friends. One of Mike Harris's new friends appears to be Kim Campbell, Prime Minister of Canada and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

Only months ago, I remember hearing from Mike Harris that he wasn't sure he was going to endorse or support Kim Campbell. When the leader of Ontario's Tories made that statement, I thought it meant he'd be endorsing Preston Manning, whose policies he seems to be endorsing, particularly Manning's policies on medicare. When I heard that Mike Harris was now going to support Kim Campbell, I made up a list of reasons for this sudden change of mind.

Could it be that Kim Campbell's optimistic view on jobs and job creation and unemployment -- she said, "Call me in the year 2000." Is that what Mike Harris is supporting? Does he want to be her man in Ontario since there's so little representation in her federal cabinet, or does Mike want to convince Kim Campbell that user fees are really good, good, good for medicare, even when every health policy expert says that medicare user fees would destroy our system and are bad, bad, bad?

I'd like to tell Mike he only has till October 25 to change his mind and vote for Jean Chrétien and the Liberals.

FOOD DRIVE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Burlington Food Share is a coalition of Burlington-area food bank agencies serving the needy in our community, and includes the Salvation Army Family Services, St Vincent de Paul, the Burlington East Emergency Fund and Food Bank and the Partnership West Family Services.

The coalition exists to coordinate ongoing, community-wide efforts to assist the increasing numbers of needy children and their families, the tragic casualties of the recession. On Friday, October 1, Burlington Food Share marked the beginning of its third annual Thanksgiving food drive that runs until Monday, October 11.

During last year's drive, the coalition collected 95,000 pounds of food, thanks to the solid support given by community-spirited individuals and companies. The Cumis Group Ltd is a company serving the credit union and caisse populaire systems. On its 140-acre Burlington property there is an apple orchard which the company continues to maintain. Yesterday, the Cumis Group dedicated its apple yield to local community groups such as Burlington Food Share during a fun-filled, apple-picking event with the participation of the CEO, Michael Kitchen, the senior vice-president, Jim Barr, and representatives of all levels of government.

As the chairman of Burlington Food Share, I should like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the Cumis Group for its kind generosity in donating its apple harvest to the Thanksgiving food drive. Cumis has shown that different groups and sectors in society can work together cooperatively to assist those in need. I would also like to encourage everyone to participate in your area food drives at Thanksgiving to help bring to the less fortunate the hope and happiness which comes from knowing that there are those ready to help in this time of need.

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I stood in my place on Thursday last week and listened to the member for Renfrew North go nuts and berate the Minister of Finance about smuggling. He attacked him unmercifully. I want to stand in my place today and speak about the 15 years I was engaged in catching the smugglers and the cheats for the governments over there.

When the Conservatives were in, we started off with three people. Then they saw the light; we went to five. When the Liberals came to power, we had 30 people engaged.

I want to talk to the member for Cornwall. I stopped a truck on Highway 401 that was loaded with cigarettes from the member for Cornwall's riding that was en route to Toronto. To the Minister of Revenue at the time, the former member for Essex South -- who is now in fantasy land, and I believe he was in fantasy land when he was the Minister of Revenue as well -- I said, "I've got this truck of cigarettes," and he said, "Just a minute, we've got to give them back because they're not going to Toronto; they're really going to southwestern Ontario, and it's just a transfer." Then those people over there got 30 inspectors and they said, "We've got to have a big attack on cigarette smuggling."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for St George-St David.

Mr Mills: They didn't want to equip anyone to stop anything. That government expected us to stop trucks on the road with nothing. Then they had the gall and audacity to criticize the Minister of Finance that he doesn't know. You never know anything about nothing.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. Would the member take his seat, please.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, like other days, people are supposed to be here, but they're not here on time, the ministers to whom we are supposed to be asking questions. The minister that I wished to speak to was the Minister of Health. I wonder if I could be told whether or not she is going to be coming here today. Is she?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): A reasonable request from the House leader of the official opposition; can the government House leader be of any assistance to us?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The Minister of Health is expected to be here, and I'll have staff check right now.

The Speaker: Does the member wish to stand down his first question?

Mr Elston: Can I ask that my colleague the member for Renfrew North then proceed with his question?

The Speaker: Okay. Before we begin, reset the clock, please. I recognize the honourable member for Renfrew North.

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): The member for Cornwall and I have been to our respective communities in southeastern Ontario this weekend, and of course we have news to report from smugglers' alley. My first question today will be to the minister responsible for the Ontario Provincial Police.

There was a time in this province when the slogan was, "Ontario -- a place to stand, a place to grow." That's now the smugglers' anthem in this province.

I have in my hand, Mr Solicitor General, a copy of an all points bulletin sent by the Canadian Coast Guard and issued recently to the residents of the Lake St Francis area of southeastern Ontario. That bulletin from the Canadian Coast Guard reads in part: "Due to the great number of non-identified motorcrafts transiting during night time at very high speed and without navigation lights, it is recommended" -- by us, the Canadian Coast Guard -- "that boating be avoided on Lake St Francis between sunset and sunrise. The situation is considered dangerous."

Are you, Mr Solicitor General, aware that this is the advice being offered to residents of Ontario by the Canadian Coast Guard in the Lake St Francis area of southeastern Ontario?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I am of course aware of the notice that was sent out, as I'm aware of the entire issue as we continue to grapple with the complexities of it. I think what the member has done is to once again do two things: one is to underscore the complexity of the issue and the fact that there are different jurisdictions.

The Coast Guard does not come under this ministry, does not come under this government; it's a federal jurisdiction. The federal government has a responsibility to provide leadership on this issue, and that is why I have said many times I think it is significant that we have a police task force made up of forces from across the various jurisdictions.

Mr Conway: Last Thursday in the assembly the Solicitor General indicated to me and to the House that the Ontario Provincial Police would be operating the Lancaster detachment on an around-the-clock basis. The Lancaster detachment is the front-line detachment facing smugglers' alley in the Cornwall-Charlottenburgh area. He has since issued a press release to that effect.

Saturday's Ottawa Citizen contains an interview from OPP officials at Lancaster, and those officials are quoted as saying, among other things: "We do not patrol specifically looking for smugglers. We never have, and it's not within our mandate."

Having regard to what the OPP is saying down in the Lancaster area about what is and what is not its mandate, can the Solicitor General indicate what's going on here; what specific measures he has taken to direct his and other provincial forces to deal with concerns around public safety and, I might add, around a daily loss of provincial revenue, a loss to the Treasurer of, we estimate, at least $650,000 a day?

The Lancaster OPP say it's not within their mandate to look out for smugglers. You stand here and say that they have been beefed up to do this very thing. Can you indicate to the people of that part of southeastern Ontario what's going on? Who's doing what? What do the people of southeastern Ontario have to expect in terms of your direction to your forces in that area?

Hon Mr Christopherson: If we had not taken the step that we did in ensuring that there was a coordinated effort on the part of the police, the honourable member across the way would be using the point he's raised today as the example of why we should have done that. Because, he would say, there are so many jurisdictional questions, because of the complexities of the matter --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Sorry, Speaker. I thought you were signalling to me.

Then he would be suggesting that those very arguments suggest that the OPP should not be working in isolation but that we should be working in concert.

I have said over and over again that the police recommended to us that, given the very points the honourable member mentions, they felt it most appropriate that they coordinate their response to this and that they make a determination on exactly the question raised: Who will be responsible for what part of our action plan? Identify the resources that are required and then ensure that each component part of the task force, of the total police effort, is meeting their need.

I've stood in my place and said that we, as a government, will do our

part in ensuring that the OPP can fulfil its obligation in this coordinated police task force.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the same minister. This government issues hunting and fishing licences, and the revenues build up the provincial coffers. I want to give you one of the instances where one of our local fishermen was fishing on Lake St Francis. Our sportsman was told that he was in smugglers' alley and that he'd better move his boat out of the way. When he didn't, the smuggler circled his boat with a high-speed boat, filling it with water, and my constituent nearly drowned.

Minister, what should I tell my constituents who simply want to fish and hunt in safety?

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Tell them to learn how to swim.

Mr Cleary: How can the Solicitor General assure my constituent that help is on the way?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Unlike one member from across the way who suggested that we tell them to learn how to swim, I would suggest the honourable member suggest that he respond by identifying the action that he has taken, to which he is deserving of credit, in ensuring that a local meeting was held where we brought together all the people, the leaders from the community. I think he should also point to not only the actions that he is involved in here in this Legislature in ensuring that this government is doing the role it should in responding, but he should point out to his constituents that the federal government has the overall responsibility for smuggling.

I think, as much as we need to see the OPP responding, and they will, we need to see the honourable member and all opposition members who care about this issue ensure that the federal government is taking its responsibility seriously. I've met with the federal minister. He's announced that he intends to introduce a national strategy, for this is a national problem.

I would suggest to the honourable mamber that he show his constituents that action is happening, that he's a part of it, but that he is also looking -- and in this election campaign I think it would be an appropriate time -- to the federal candidates and federal parties to provide their share of the leadership too.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): In the absence of the Minister of Health, to the Premier: I have a constituent in my riding who suffers from cancer, has the prospect of having a bone marrow transplant and has been told by the people at Princess Margaret Hospital, where he is now undergoing treatment, that if he does not have that operation by late November, I think November 26, he may very well not be able to have that operation at all at Princess Margaret because of both the cutbacks in funding transfers from the province and as a result of the social contract cutbacks.

My question to the Premier is: Does he consider a bone marrow transplant to be an essential service, one that was not supposed to have been touched by his government's health funding cuts or the social contract?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think the member knows, and I'm sure he's not oblivious to this fact, that as a bone marrow donor myself, this is an issue that obviously I have some quite strong personal feelings about and experiences of.

I would say, in reply to the member, that it is the policy of this government that where a doctor determines, on the basis of every instinct and medical expertise that doctor has, that a bone marrow transplant is the best possible treatment for a patient, it is the responsibility of our medical care system -- the hospital and the health insurance plan -- to see that the transplant is made possible. That is the policy of the government. I don't want there to be any misunderstanding about that anywhere in the province.

Having said that, and I'm sure the honourable member would appreciate the importance of this, I can't comment on any individual case. I'm not aware of the circumstances involving any individual patient. I do know that these are difficult and emotional decisions for doctors and for patients.

I can only say to the honourable member that, as much as humanly possible, it is the policy of the government and it should be the policy of the government that any patients who, as I say, the doctors treating that patient feel would benefit from the treatment -- and I think the honourable member should know the doctors have to exercise their judgement in that context, but as much as humanly possible -- where that decision is made by a doctor, that decision should be made knowing that the medical insurance plan will cover that treatment. I want that to be very clear and --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- I appreciate the opportunity to make that statement today.

Mr Elston: That was the reason in fact I wished to speak to the Minister of Health, because I do know of the Premier's resolve and his deep feeling on this matter. I did wish to address the question to the Minister of Health, because the Princess Margaret Hospital has been told that the Ministry of Health will no longer fund the cost of finding a match for transplant patients. They have been told that they will pay a flat fee of $5,000 when they know that if the PMH officials have to go outside the boundaries of Ontario it will cost anywhere from $18,000 to $30,000.

If a decision is made by the cancer treatment people in the best interests of the patient, that the match is to be found, then anything over $5,000, which is paid only when there is a successful match found, will be absorbed by the operating budget of Princess Margaret Hospital. That means that there are one or two options, maybe three: They can discontinue doing the searches outside the boundaries, they can cut back on the number of searches, they can stop doing the same number of transplants, or they can do both.

What is it that we are to assume when the Premier says that everything humanly possible will be done and the ministry says, "You do whatever you want, but we won't pay for it," and PMH and also other hospitals around the province are told to swallow the costs the Ministry of Health used to fund?

Hon Mr Rae: I just want to say this directly to the honourable member: Without getting into a discussion of the question of the hospital budgets versus the health insurance plan budgets and how these questions are resolved, I want to say as Premier that it is the policy of this government that where it is determined by a doctor that a bone marrow transplant is the treatment that is medically necessary and medically required, that a patient requires and that a patient needs, the costs of that transplant are to be covered by the health insurance plan and are to be covered by the doctor.

The member has raised the question of matching from non-relatives. I can tell the honourable member that the international bone marrow world, as I understand it, and Americans particularly, have raised the costs of the search for a match outside Canada from roughly $18,000 to now roughly $30,000, which is expensive. But I want to tell the honourable member that as far as I'm concerned it would not be acceptable to this government, and certainly isn't acceptable to me as Premier, to say to any patient in this province that any financial consideration would be a deterrent to their receiving what is medically necessary care.

I tell the honourable member that if that situation pertains, that situation must be changed, because it is not acceptable to me, I don't think it's acceptable to anyone in the province and I don't think it's acceptable to people out there who care about an issue that matters. Whether it's a bone marrow transplant or any other treatment that is determined by a doctor to be medically necessary, it is not acceptable that there be any financial deterrent to patients receiving that kind of care.

Mr Elston: I thank the Premier for that statement, because for my constituent it has taken off some of the limitations in his way to recovery. He has been told that if his operation is not scheduled before the end of November, that was the time when the bone marrow transplant program at Princess Margaret Hospital was going to be cut back, because of the very things I said and because of the very things the Premier said. I stand and applaud the Premier for taking away that financial restriction and for allowing bone marrow transplants to continue and for allowing bone marrow match searches to continue.

I ask the Premier if he will ensure that the Ministry of Health be directed immediately to send out a memorandum to all of the hospitals involved in bone marrow search and transplant programs that they are free to carry on with the business that they see as necessary in preserving the lives of their patients.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that I want to be direct, and he'll appreciate how strongly I feel. I will certainly talk to the Minister of Health about this.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. The minister will know that 80% of the jobs that have been created in Ontario over the last few years have not been created by the government; they've been created by small business. A recent report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that the number one problem facing small business today is the taxation burden.

In fact, in a report to the Fair Tax Commission they say, and I quote, "Small businesses in Ontario have experienced a virtual explosion in the numbers and levels of taxes imposed upon them." They go on to say that in a recent survey fully 90% of Ontario's small business firms cite the total tax burden as a serious problem. It's the number one issue out there with small business.

Since small businesses are the ones that are creating 80% of the jobs, my question to you is this: Can small business hope to see some tax relief during your government's mandate?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member will know that in fact this government has taken action. We are under way with a number of initiatives with respect to small business. Quite frankly, I agree with the assertions that you have made in terms of the job creation potential of small business. That is the engine of the economy.

There is no disagreement in terms of the facts you've set out. With respect to costs in general, cost burden, because I would add to that regulatory and paper burden and those sorts of things that we are trying to address in a very proactive and concrete way, with respect to taxation I would say that the small business community I meet with talks about the combined load of taxation. There is a lot of anger about the federal GST as well as the combined GST and PST and other levels with respect to what it means for consumer confidence and corporate taxes etc.

You will know that in 1992 this government cut the corporate tax rate for small business from 10% to 9.5%. You may think that's only a small amount, but it was a previous level established by the previous government. We reduced that for small business. That put $25 million into the hands of existing small business.

We have a number of other initiatives that we've taken with respect to filing of the employer health tax once a year. That's a cheaper process for small business. I'm sure that in your supplementary I can provide you with more information. I think the points you raised are valid. I agree with them and we actually have an action plan, which I can elaborate on for you, that I think will turn around the view of small business with respect to doing business in this province and investing more.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): We look forward to hearing the action plan, Minister, but you also must understand that your $2 billion in tax increases in the last budget have had a devastating effect on consumer demand in this province, which has in turn devastated small business. You also must understand that small business is the biggest creator of jobs but that it also accounts for about 50% of all employment in the province today. That is why yesterday our caucus initiated a task force on cutting red tape and growing small business.

Yesterday the Globe and Mail published a chart showing that small businesses pay bigger taxes and that as the size of the firm increases, its ratio of tax to income decreases. Why have you not addressed this taxation inequity when small business is so vital to our economy?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, I would say to the member that first of all, with respect to the taxes in the last budget, let me put it to him that small business is also critically concerned about the level of the deficit in this province and that in my discussions with small business people across the province -- but I'll tell you about round tables held in my own riding, where people felt that it was very important that there be a complete package of approach with respect to deficit reduction. They understood that there was going to have to be a sharing of the burden, and that included moves on the revenue side as well as expenditure cuts.

With respect to actual initiatives, I referenced the cut in corporate taxes for small business and the filing of employer health tax on an annual basis rather than the way it was before. We've taken steps to allow lenders to reduce the cost of borrowing for small business by treating interest payments as dividends for tax purposes. We have made tax moves.

Let me say that in terms of clearing the burden we also have, at this point in time, a process -- and there are lots of incentives for the startup of a new business -- where businesses can come forward and can apply for filing for employer health tax and RST and the business names registration at one place instead of having to run around all over the province the way --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- they did before. We are moving, with the cooperation of small business in the monitoring group that's been established to monitor our activities on this program, to the development of a master licensing system.

We have reviewed other jurisdictions, which your task force is going to do. We've already done that. We've looked at Washington; we've looked at a number of areas; we're moving towards establishment of a master licensing and to unified tax reporting, so that small business doesn't have to file employer health tax, WCB, corporate income tax, federal income tax --

The Speaker: Will the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- that it can be unified in one tax reporting. That's what small business wants, and we are delivering that.

Mr Arnott: The minister indicates that the small business sector is concerned about the deficit. That's very, very true, Minister, but the small business sector does not want higher taxes; it wants you to control your excessive spending problem. During the last eight years of Liberal and NDP government, small businesses have been hit by the costs of one policy after another. Whether it's been Liberal payroll taxes, the NDP labour law, arbitrary increases in the minimum wage or mandatory health and safety training, the potential impact and the cumulative effect of all of these policies and regulations on small business has been ignored by you.

As a first step, will you commit to undertaking an economic impact study of any new initiative put forward by your government for the rest of your mandate?

Hon Ms Lankin: I find it interesting that the member picks and chooses and doesn't respond to the initiatives that I laid out. Let me say to you that what small business wants is both a reduction in taxation, which will be accomplished by the moves we've already taken and by controlling the deficit and controlling our expenditures -- which this government has taken courageous steps on compared to any other previous government in this province -- as well as a lifting of the regulatory burden and the paper burden.

I spelled out for you a number of initiatives that this government is taking with the small business community, sitting there responding to what it wants, responding to what all of the studies have already said needs to happen in terms of master licensing and in terms of unified tax reporting. Those are the things that will lift the regulatory burden and the paperwork.

What's the Tory answer? The consultation process. The task force plans three stages. In the first stage it plans to hold a series of meetings with major representatives of provincial and regional business associations. In the second stage the task force will meet with local business in different regions in communities across the province. In the third stage it'll draft a paper and distribute it for consultation. That task force, that committee, that study -- we're acting; all you're doing is going out and organizing a mailing list for the next election. This will deliver. Don't get bought in by the Tory plan on this.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): If the minister would like to resign and give up the government, we'd be happy to take action on behalf of small business in this province, particularly action it wants taken.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a question to the Minister of Health. Yesterday, Minister, you confirmed in this House that the red and white health card system that was brought in by the Liberals was clearly brought in without any safeguards. That was and continues to be wide open to fraud and abuse.

Minister, it's clear from your response yesterday and from all the research we did, and there's agreement I think across the province, that the Liberals indeed brought in a faulty health card system. But, Minister, I think you have continued to perpetuate the mismanagement of that system.

On July 26 I asked you about the alleged abuse of our health care system by some residents -- that is, American residents -- living on the Akwesasne reserve. You told me at that time that you were investigating those allegations. Can you tell this House today what the status of that investigation is?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): There have been a number of meetings both with officials at Akwesasne and with the province of Quebec officials with respect to the work and the investigation the government of Quebec had begun to initiate with respect to its thoughts or suspicions that there was some misuse of its health system by residents. That is proceeding, and I can't give the member a conclusion today.

Mr Jim Wilson: I say to the minister that officials in your ministry have told my office that that investigation is not only complete but that a report has been sent to your office for your review and action. The results of that investigation confirm what we've suspected for quite some time, and that is that Ontario's health care system has lost precious health care dollars because of abuse by some residents of the Akwasasne reserve.

Minister, since you have the report, how many people are ripping off the system, how many dollars are involved, and why haven't you made the report public and started acting on its findings?

Hon Mrs Grier: If the report has been received by the ministry, I'm not aware that it has; I have certainly not yet received from my officials an evaluation and a recommendation based on any such report. That is why I am unable at this point to answer specifically the member's questions.

But let me assure him that this is an issue in which I have a very real interest. As I have told this House on many occasions, if there are in fact any cases where our health care system is being misused by people who are not eligible to use the system, action will be taken; but that action will be based on facts and on investigation, not on rumour.

Mr Jim Wilson: For months and months I have stood in this House and brought forward example after example of health card fraud, yet even after we brought forward a specific example, abuse occurring on the Akwasasne reserve, your ministry has completed the investigation of the Akwasasne reserve, but you, minister, have done nothing to follow up on the findings of that report. No charges have been laid and no steps have been taken to stop the abuse. You have a report that confirms that a number of people on the reserve are ripping off the system, and all you've done is shelve its findings.

Why did you authorize the investigation at Akwasasne when it is clear you haven't got the political guts to crack down on the fraud that is occurring there?

Hon Mrs Grier: Well, it's the first time I've been accused in this House of lacking political guts. Usually the people on the other side are complaining about strong actions taken by me and by this government in order to deal with problems in the province.

Let me assure the member that when there is information to share, with respect to the investigation on the Akwasasne reserve and our colleagues in Quebec and what action can be taken to deal with that in the long term, it will be shared.

But when the member says that he has time and time again brought to this House instances of abuse, let me remind the member that on each occasion when he has done so, he has been asked if he can furnish us with a name or an address or a number or a physician, and in all of the cases he has failed to provide anything more than rumour or hearsay.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. New question, the member for Mississauga North.

Interjections.

The Speaker: That was your final supplementary. On a point of privilege?

Mr Jim Wilson: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: An allegation has been made. I just remind the member that each time I brought forward a specific example, the government's own report confirmed the truthfulness of those --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. He knows it's not a point of privilege. There certainly is a difference of opinion, not unusual in this House. The member for Mississauga North with his question.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, your Bill 47 implements the use of photo radar cameras to photograph the licence plates of speeding vehicles. You say this will make our roads safer. However, Minister, after reading through the legislation and speaking with your officials, it has been revealed that no demerit points will be issued for speeders caught by the photo radar cameras.

For the first time since demerit points have been introduced in the history of our province, speeders will not, on conviction, lose points. This does not improve road safety; it erodes safety. Your bill is a licence to speed. My question is, what justification do you have to allow drivers in this province to speed without losing points?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): One must be careful not to confuse the safety matter with a subject matter that could become lucrative. Speed kills; everyone knows this. We have an improving record. It will be used at random, will be monitored by the Ontario Provincial Police and it will be focused on people who far exceed, far surpass the speed limit, which is currently 100 kilometres an hour.

It will be done as a pilot project on Friday nights and Saturday nights. We don't have the facility under the system to identify the drivers. That's why it's called photo radar. It gets you an accurate picture of the licence plate and the vehicle owner becomes the culprit. I understand that; I believe in safety initiatives. I also believe, like my friend across the aisle probably does, or should, in any case, that Ontario's highways should and are to become the safest highways in North America.

Mr Offer: The pilot project that the minister has indicated is a six-month pilot project. I will tell you, Mr Speaker, through you to the minister and to members of the government, the information I have today is information that's been provided to me by the Ministry of Transportation.

You are going to be implementing a six-month pilot project starting this January, six months from January to June, when in Ontario we experience the worst road conditions and have the least amount of sunlight. In the spring, we have ongoing changes in the road conditions, and I do not want to mention the issue of graduations and proms that go on during that time period.

This is not a road safety bill; it is a tax bill. It is designed to raise money through fines only, at the sacrifice of road safety. Again I ask the minister, what justification do you have to allow drivers to speed in this province, at whatever time, throughout whatever road conditions, and upon conviction, not have to suffer the penalty of demerit points?

What justification do you have to change the way in which our roads have been made safe? You are not making them safer; you are making them less safe, and you are doing it not with respect to this bill but you are doing it to raise money.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I find it, to say the least, appalling that the member opposite would impute motives to the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Finance, on this minister, members of cabinet, members of caucus.

Is he in favour of speeding? A cynic would go further and say, does he feel jeopardized? We are talking about 100 kilometres an hour. I cannot stand in my place and believe for one moment that this is a money-maker. This is a safety initiative. Ours is a record of constant improvement. Photo radar is coming into play; it's got to be a pilot project. It will make our roads safer and safer and safer.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is for the Attorney General. This past summer, the Mike Harris task force on crime, justice and community safety hosted forums across the province of Ontario. The task force consistently heard the message that sentencing was too lenient for violent repeat offenders. I would like to ask the Attorney General to explain the instructions that senior officials in her ministry provide to crown attorneys when they are making submissions for the sentencing of violent repeat offenders.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I think the member is well aware that the directions and the directives that are given to crown attorneys are rather general in their nature; that essentially the instruction is that these crimes be taken very seriously, that the maximum sentences within the Criminal Code be clearly part of the presentation and a reminder to the court, but that the mitigating circumstances might be different in each case; and that each of the crown attorneys is encouraged, within the facts of any particular case, within the evidence that's been brought before the court, to make sentencing recommendations that are in keeping with the deterrent effect of sentences, both the personal deterrent effect for the individual person who is convicted of a crime and also the general deterrent effect in terms of the general population.

There's no hard and fast rule for crown attorneys. That would take away from their professional discretion, which is extremely important to us, as they are the people who have heard the facts, who are familiar with the case, who know what the testimony was at that particular trial.

Mr Harnick: What bothers me is that you say they're given general instructions, and that if it's serious they seek the maximum. I'll tell you that last week, an individual was sentenced to three years in prison following his conviction on a charge of assault. It was the third time this individual had been convicted of violently assaulting the same woman in the last three years. He was on probation when this last offence occurred. The second assault was assault involving the use of a weapon. The assault for which he was convicted last week, the third assault, involved stabbing the woman in the face with a pencil, almost taking out her eye.

If your government is serious about providing the maximum possible protection for women, do you not believe that in cases such as this, you should be instructing crown attorneys to pursue applications to declare these individuals to be dangerous offenders?

Hon Mrs Boyd: There is a good deal of jurisprudence and a lot of work that has been done, a lot of it through the recent inquest in the Stephenson case, on the use of dangerous offender applications.

One of the issues the member must be aware of is that I am not going to comment on the sentence in a particular case, as I do not know the details of that case and do not know what the crown attorney was asking for.

I would remind the member, who as a lawyer knows, that crown attorneys very often ask for longer sentences than judges give. That is up to the discretion of the bench. In the case of a dangerous offender situation, there are criteria which have been clearly set out by the court in terms of what is appropriate for a dangerous offender.

Mr Harnick: They didn't ask that he be declared a dangerous offender. A three-year sentence after attacking a woman three times. Bring the application.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mrs Boyd: They include the kind of repeated offence; that is one issue. But they also include psychological evidence around the particular individual, and there are a number of different tests that must be met. In any application, those tests must be met or else the application would be thrown out by the court prior to sentencing. One does not overuse this very, very serious measure, which in fact incarcerates someone indefinitely. That needs to be used judiciously and sparingly for the worst cases.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Today is day 16 of the strike in Sarnia-Lambton involving the Lambton County Board of Education and its secondary school teachers. You will know that the Education Relations Commission was in Sarnia yesterday to assist in mediating the dispute between the two parties. You will also know that, like the first meeting, this meeting ended with nothing being resolved. This is week four of this dispute, and it really means it's week eight of the dispute because of Lambton county's semestered system.

My constituents, both parents and students, are frustrated and angry. They tell me enough is enough. They think teachers should be teaching and students should be in school learning. My constituents want to know, when will you act to end this dispute?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I understand the frustration and the difficulty that parents and students are experiencing in the Lambton area. I might say that knowing what I know about this dispute, there is absolutely no reason why there needs to be a labour dispute in the Lambton area right now. The issue is very clear, the solutions are very clear and the solution could be found this afternoon if both parties wanted to get back to the bargaining table and bargain seriously.

In the meantime, the Education Relations Commission continues to monitor the situation. They were involved yesterday in mediation. There is a process under the law which I think is the appropriate process that all three political parties have supported, and that process is that the Education Relations Commission determines when there is jeopardy and then it will report to me as Minister of Education.

Mr Huget: While we all anxiously await this decision from the ERC, there are other issues that arise as a direct result of this dispute. September 1993 marked the beginning of the common curriculum and November is scheduled for province-wide testing of grade 9 students. Minister, you'll be aware that Lambton teachers have been working to rule since April 8, 1993, and probably have not received the training for these two initiatives. Have you considered the impact this will have on the Transitions program, and do you feel it's appropriate to test these students next month when this may not accurately reflect the skills of the students in Lambton county?

Hon Mr Cooke: It's my information that a lot of work was done in the Lambton area in terms of preparation for the implementation of a destreamed grade 9 this fall and that this issue has been adequately dealt with.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I hear the door of the woodshed opening.

Hon Mr Cooke: In terms of the grade 9 province-wide test, I can assure the member and the students that flexibility will have to be worked out with the board and the teachers when the school system gets back to normal.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Sean Cooke is answering this question. Sean Cooke and David Conway; they are ERCing themselves to death.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mr Cooke: The ministry will work through those problems in terms of the timing of the test when the teachers return to the classroom and the solution has been discovered.

POLICE COMPLAINTS

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a question for the Attorney General. I'd like to take her back to the Audrey Smith affair. As she will recall, she intervened, as well as Clare Lewis, in the process to try to ensure that the investigation of this issue was speeded up. Audrey Smith has now gone back to Jamaica without a resolution.

I'd like to ask the Attorney General if she's aware that the first person in authority whom Audrey Smith went to to make a complaint was Clare Lewis's public complaints commission. She was told that they could not speed up the process just because she was leaving the country and that in fact it could take up to two months before there was a resolution. Is the Attorney General aware of that and is she satisfied that is how justice is done in these kinds of public complaints?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): No, I was not aware of that. That was not a fact that was brought to my attention, but now that the member has brought it up, I certainly will inquire of the commission whether that was in fact the answer that was given to this woman, and if so, then I share the member's concern.

Mr Murphy: Frankly, I don't think that's satisfactory. We have a police complaints commission in which no one has any faith. I placed an order paper question, and the average time of resolution is now 141 days, almost five months. It is being sued because of delay. A constituent in my riding has had a case dismissed because of delay. This is entirely unsatisfactory that they're being told, "We can't do anything about it."

She's gone back to Jamaica. What are you doing? It's in your bailiwick. You should know what to do and what's happening. I ask you again, do you believe that this is what should be done, and if you're not satisfied, what are you prepared to do about it? As you know, justice delayed is justice denied, and justice is being denied in these circumstances.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I agree with the member that there is concern about the length of time for some of the cases, just as there are, I might add, in terms of all sorts of investigations, police investigations as well as commission investigations, in other areas. If we look across the board, these kinds of cases are in fact difficult to investigate, to get the evidence together and to present a credible case. I think the member is well aware of that.

In the particular instance, my understanding is that the investigation, the discussions with the complainant had been completed, that both the Metro Toronto Police complaints commission and the Ontario Police Commission had the information they wanted in statement form. Both were aware the woman would be leaving to return to Jamaica and indicated that they had finished with their need of talking to her in terms of the investigation. I'm sure they will be appropriate in informing her of any findings of that investigation, and if further investigation should be --

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- needed, that she would be contacted appropriately.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education. We certainly share the views of the member for Sarnia with regard to almost 7,000 students who are not in school. You said, Mr Minister -- I think I am fair in quoting you -- that there is no reason for a labour dispute in Sarnia. The fact is that we have one. You also say that both parties want to settle; that would be their choice. The point is that yesterday we found out both parties don't want to settle.

You said we have a process under law, and you'd be interested to know that we asked the former minister in May 1992 if he would take a look at this process under law because there were over 100 school boards that hadn't settled in May 1992, and we could see this happening and coming before us.

My question to you today is, do you really think that the education of some 6,730 students is less important than the labour relations process, or are you going to take a firm stand and get involved and legislate this board back so the students can attend school?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I really believe strongly that the legislation Tom Wells brought in in the 1970s is legislation that has worked well in the province of Ontario. My understanding and my recollection is that there have been something in the neighbourhood of 75 or 76 strikes in that entire period of time and that all of them except six have been settled at the bargaining table.

The reality is that because Conservative governments and Liberal governments and this government resist bringing in back-to-work legislation and follow the process under Bill 100, the Education Relations Commission process, free collective bargaining works and solutions are found at the bargaining table. That's where they should be found and that's what the member should be telling the teachers and the board in Lambton. Don't tell me to bring in legislation. You'd be a lot more helpful if you'd tell the teachers and the board to find a solution back in Lambton.

Mrs Cunningham: I think this minister ought to know that response was appropriate probably two years ago, even perhaps a year ago, but in light of the 1984 Macdonald commission's strong recommendations to review a bill that has been law in this province for over 20 years, in light of our own public accounts committee which also made that recommendation signed by the then opposition members who were NDP members, in light of the answer to this same question by the former minister who recognized that there is room for improvement in the local collective bargaining process for school boards, and school boards, including the ERC, have known this and have also made these recommendations in the last five years, the minister's answer, quite frankly, was an uninformed answer.

I would say to him today that he should go back to his bureaucrats, to his best advisers and perhaps very quickly get some good advice around what ought to be changed, because this law now is in the way of getting a solution, and the only solution is for him to step in.

I'm going to ask this question: In light of the fact that he is not yet ready to step in today, will he go back to his senior advisers and find out just what has to be changed in that collective bargaining process, come back to this House and inform us what he's going to do about it? If he doesn't want to interfere, will he look at the legislation itself and advise us how he can help in regard to this strike in Lambton county?

Hon Mr Cooke: When one looks at the statistics and the success that the process has experienced over the years, the minimal number of strikes and the fact that only six of them have been dealt with through back-to-work legislation, I would suggest to the member that she's wrong. It's politically opportunistic to come up every time there's a strike and suggest that Bill 100 should be changed or that the right for teachers to strike should be taken away. I would just suggest that the member could be a lot more helpful if she wouldn't play those games.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for York East.

Point of order, the member for London North.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, I don't know whether it's a point of order or privilege, but I just want the minister to know that with regard to the collective bargaining process, it doesn't matter anyway, because he made a sham of it during the most recent --

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order or a point of privilege. Would the member take her seat, please.

MIDWIFERY

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Minister of Health. On September 18, I attended a midwifery conference which was celebrating the accomplishments of the Midwifery Task Force of Ontario and also all the positive changes that are now happening in the field of midwifery.

In your speech that day, we were encouraged by your remarks with respect to midwives being legislated under the Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act. It may seem incredible to believe, but yes, some women are actually making a decision to wait for the legislation to pass before they start planning their families. Right now, women who choose to have a home birth using the services of trained midwives will pay between $1,000 and $1,500 for such services. Can the minister please tell me the current status of the midwifery program?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I attended the same celebration with the member for York East and I really appreciate his long-standing and sincere interest in the future of midwifery in the province.

I'm delighted to tell him and the other members of this House that in fact our program is moving ahead as planned and that beginning in 1994, midwifery services will be fully funded by the Ministry of Health. When people talk about cutbacks in health services, this is a service for which women have paid from their own pockets and which in future will be part of the health care system of this province. I'm very proud about that.

Last Saturday, I had the honour of addressing the graduating class of the Michener Institute for Health Sciences. Among the graduates were 62 midwives who will be among the first midwives to be licensed in this country and in this province. I'm very proud of the initiatives that our government has taken with regard to midwifery. The regulation and the funding of this program will offer women more choices and more control --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- over their pregnancies and over the birth of their children.

Mr Malkowski: I wish the Minister of Health congratulations. This is very, very important legislation.

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Attorney General and the minister responsible for women's issues. Madam Minister, your staff has been assigned to suppress a report. Legal advice has been sought. A major hearing of the freedom of information and protection of privacy commission has been held. Judgements have been rendered. Court costs have been accumulated. The judgement of everyone concerned, excepting yourself, is to release a heavily edited, 99-page report from a ministry of government on Grandview.

On behalf of the victims and indeed the taxpayers of Ontario, my question to you today is, how much has it cost the people of Ontario for you to continue to hold your position and to pay for all the appeals and all the services of those you needed to help you achieve what many consider to be a coverup of a very important report?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): The major task of the Ministry of the Attorney General is to ensure that the integrity of the justice system is maintained. Our position on this report is very clear. We believe that the release of this report at this time will jeopardize the ongoing investigation and the charges that have already been laid in this case. It is our job to defend the system against that kind of possible infringement.

I can't answer the question in dollar terms at this particular point in time. I will tell the member that indeed we have been given leave to appeal. We will be appealing the decision of the court because we believe very firmly that the release of the report at this time could jeopardize the focus of the attention of this investigation, which is those who have allegedly perpetrated acts that all of us find deplorable.

Mrs O'Neill: I hope those figures will be forthcoming, because they are of great interest. It's almost three years since your government and indeed the residents of Ontario were made aware of the horrific abuse at Grandview. It's been almost a year since the words "compensation" or "funding for education and training" were brought to the floor of this Legislature, and indeed on that day I brought them.

Through an all-party debate in this Legislature on October 22, 1992, almost a year ago, unanimous agreement was reached that Grandview survivors needed more than words. They needed access to resources to rebuild their lives. They told us that very poignantly last Thursday on the steps of the Legislature.

Madam Minister, will you assure this House and indeed the survivors of Grandview who are present here today that educational opportunities and compensation are on the front burner with your government, are a priority for your government?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I'm very pleased and proud to say that indeed it is, and that negotiation has been ongoing. There have been staff who have been assigned to it full-time, who are working with the counsel for the group of survivors. There have been some interim measures made to try and ensure that some of the flow of compensation for counselling that has already been done has gone to those people, and I can assure the member that it is indeed a priority for us to continue to negotiate this.

I would remind the member that we are doing this as much as we can in partnership with the group that represents the survivors. We have been trying to do it in a way that reaches out to as many of those who were at Grandview as possible, a thing that is a goal that is shared, I know, by the survivors group itself. I can assure the member that I'll be pleased to report on our progress from time to time, as we agree with the survivors group that that is appropriate to do.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Very briefly, again to the same minister: On Thursday last I raised the question to the Minister of Community and Social Services in your absence. The fact is that there are still four or five unanswered deaths of inmates of this institution. The women survivors are desperately seeking information which your government is suppressing with respect to adoption, when children were physically removed from this facility from pregnant inmates.

There were abortions performed inside that facility. These women are asking for some basic counselling, some compensation and access to birth information. There are things that your government can do over and above the legal bafflegab that you've been conveying to the House this afternoon.

On behalf of the victim-survivors, will you not assist them with those legitimate requests for counselling that has not been forthcoming in the amount that's required, and for access to information for those women so they can start rebuilding and repairing their lives?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Indeed, counselling has been provided and financing for counselling has been provided. That is an ongoing commitment that I have made and that the other ministers who were involved -- because this is a shared responsibility between a number of ministries -- have made. We will keep that commitment. I know that the Minister of Community and Social Services responded with his commitment to be of as great assistance as possible as this work goes on.

We share the concern of the member, although I must say, since these events occurred some time ago and his government was in power for at least 10 years following the events, it is surprising to us that the member from Burlington tries to sound so very, very concerned in this case when the government which his party ran for 10 years after the case did not take any action.

VISITOR

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to bring to your attention that in the west gallery we have the mayor from Port-of-Spain, which is twinned with St Catharines, and his name is Ethelbert "Telly" Paul. I want to tell you that he has visited my colleague here in St Catharines and had a tremendous welcome, and I would like us all to welcome him here.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member does not have a point of order. However, the guest he has introduced is certainly most welcome here.

CORRECTION

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish to correct a statement I made in the House yesterday. It was in response to a question from the leader of the third party.

I made a statement with respect to Professor William Eadington from the University of Nevada, Reno. I've often told this House that the casino project has engaged a number of consultants who are experts in various aspects of the casino business. Professor Eadington is a respected academic and adviser to many of those involved in the casino business. I have been informed that Dr Eadington was paid a consulting fee for the work he has done with the Ontario casino project team, as have the others who have consulted on this project. But I'd like to assure the House, as I've done many times before, that this in no way jeopardizes the integrity of the process.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for York Mills has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Municipal Affairs concerning a private member's bill, vital services bylaws.

This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I presume what the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was trying to say was that in fact our leader was right and Dr Eadington was being paid by both Harrah's and the provincial government at the same time as he was advising the provinces whether they should put Harrah's on the short list or not.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. When members rise to correct the record, other members may choose to interpret those words as they may.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition that has been signed by the employees of Blessed Sacrament Catholic School, which I'd like to read into the record:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto, and

whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully, but with equity and equality."

I've signed this petition.

GO TRANSIT

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows to object to the recent cuts to GO Transit bus service to Woodbridge, Kleinburg, Nobleton, Bolton, Palgrave and Highway 9:

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers; and

"Whereas it will have a negative impact on the local economy; and

"Whereas the lack of transit services will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels at a time when all levels of government are making efforts to reduce pollution and encourage public transport systems; and

"Whereas the cuts leave no alternative means of commuting in and out of Toronto during peak hours; and

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers at one of the worst economic times in Ontario history to incur extra expense finding another form of transportation,

"That the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision and restore GO Transit service to Woodbridge, Kleinburg, Nobleton, Bolton, Palgrave and Highway 9."

I am in support of this petition and I have duly signed it.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly and to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government's plan of sale,

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

"Therefore, the provincial government request that the federal Minister of the Environment of Canada conduct a review panel to ensure that the land is disposed of in an organized way, protecting the rural resources and the communities and the residents therein."

It's been signed by many people from the rural parts of Uxbridge and Stouffville. I see I've got a page here. I'll just sign it and send it down to the table.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, written and presented by people from Whitby, Oshawa, Simcoe, Ingersoll, Woodstock, Tavistock, Nepean, Jarvis, Hagersville -- as you can see, from all around the province, Mr Speaker. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated that multiservice agencies, the new single local point of access for long-term care and support services, must purchase 90% of their homemaking and professional services from not-for-profit providers, therefore virtually eliminating use of commercial providers,

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

"We protest the action to drastically reduce the service provision by commercial providers and respectfully request that the impact of this policy decision, including a cost study, be performed before any further implementation."

I heartily concur with this petition and have affixed my name to it.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have yet another petition signed by residents from all over southern Ontario who are calling out for fairness and justice for the people who live in the north Pickering lands.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

I think it's high time that the federal government show some sensitivity to these people's needs and do what we ask and plan progressively. I put my signature to this petition.

HEALTH CARDS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): This is to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want to retain universal health care for all Ontario people;

"We believe that loopholes in the health card system invite fraud by service providers;

"We are convinced that government employees and health care consumers are being unfairly blamed for health care fraud;

"We believe that consumer control of health cards is denied because of a paternalistic government system where costs for consultation, reports and examinations are kept secret to prevent clients from making informed choices or seeking alternative methods;

"We also believe that when we give our number to a service provider we no longer have control over how often or when it is used;

"We also believe government employees have no way of knowing:

"(1) when patients change doctors;

"(2) when patients leave HSO and go to CHC or a fee-for-service doctor;

"(3) when service providers overbill;

"

(4) When doctors bill for visits they have not made, especially in nursing homes where the house doctor comes once a month, asks the RN how the patients are and then sees only the residents with problems but bills for everyone, and if the doctor's recordkeeping is sloppy, they could also bill for residents who are discharged or deceased;

"

(5) When OHIP is doublebilled for one procedure because elderly or incompetent doctors are allowed to keep hospital privileges and/or collect from OHIP when all their orders must be cosigned by competent doctors; and

"

(6) When hospital cards and Ontario health cards are used by unauthorized users."

This has been signed by some people in my community of Waterloo North.

I have another petition here that has come to me from Marian and Ken Israel in West Montrose.

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

"

(1) To give ownership of health care to the consumer by devising a system that allows consumers to monitor their own health card abuse just as they monitor their own credit cards;

"

(2) To recognize the fact that the potential for abuse lies with both the health care provider and the health care consumer;

"

(3) To provide a health card that can be used with an addressograph and used in all hospitals and by all service providers;

"

(4) Program the OHIP computer so that health card numbers list costs and charges under the name of the consumer as well as under the name of the service provider;

"

(5) The computer printout of the client's record be sent to every cardholder at regular intervals with a statement of the charges incurred, with requests for change of address, health and marital status;

"

(6) That statements be corrected, signed and returned within a certain period of time or the health card number would be automatically cancelled and the person would need to reapply;

"

(7) That all elderly service providers honour the mandatory retirement age in Ontario and not be permitted to bill OHIP after the age of 65;

"

(8) That cards be renewed like drivers' licences;

"

(9) That experts from the private sector be commissioned to set up a fraudproof card system such as the banks and department stores have;

"

(10) That the views and concerns of provincial Conservative leader Mike Harris re health care fraud be given an honest hearing."

That comes from the constituents in my riding of Waterloo North.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

Since I agree with this, I will be affixing my signature to this petition.

I have another petition to do with gambling.

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

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

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has stated that it has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

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

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I affix my name to this petition because I agree with it.

GO TRANSIT

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows to object to the recent cuts in the GO Transit service to the Stouffville-Uxbridge area;

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers and will substantially increase the travelling time for all users; and

"Whereas the lack of transit services will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels at a time when all levels of government are making an effort to reduce pollution and to encourage public transportation systems; and

"Whereas the cuts will leave no alternative means of commuting in and out of Toronto for individuals with flexible work arrangements and child care commitments (the earliest train departs from downtown at 5:20 pm); and

"Whereas it will have a negative impact to the local economy; and

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers to incur extra expenses in finding and using alternative forms of transportation;

"That the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision and restore GO bus service to the Stouffville-Uxbridge area."

I have affixed my name to it.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, clearly a result of Bill 50 as it was presented to the House, which reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my name to this petition.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas the Catholic teacher is and always has been the essential feature making a classroom in school 'Catholic,' and in addition to acquiring knowledge as a specified range of academic subjects, the student also learns that religious values are an important, central and fundamental aspect of a separate school education; and

"Whereas Catholic parents have the right to be assured that the religious objectives of their faith are pursued in the Catholic school system by being integrated into every aspect of school life; and

"Whereas the Catholic community firmly believes that these aims and objectives are best developed by committed teachers of the Catholic faith.

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we request that

section 136 of the Education Act be repealed so that the Catholic nature of separate schools in Ontario, granted to us under the British North America Act, will be preserved."

I hereto affix my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Gary Wilson, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr59,

An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL ASSESSORS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Perruzza, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr50,

An Act to amend the Institute of Municipal Assessors Act, 1987.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 80,

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

Loi sur les relations de travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe the member for Waterloo North still has 25 minutes to debate.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Today I plan to conclude my remarks regarding Bill 80. Bill 80 is the bill that amends the Ontario Labour Relations Act for the construction sector and addresses six major issues: trade union constitutions, shared bargaining rights, jurisdiction, interference with a local trade union, successorship and administration of benefit plans.

I indicated yesterday that there is tremendous controversy regarding this bill; in fact, there has been a very lively debate. There are those unions which of course support the bill and there are certainly many, many others which have indicated that there was not adequate consultation, that they were not involved in the discussions prior to the introduction of Bill 80 and that they have some concerns they feel the minister needs to address.

The major concern the unions which do not feel that they were adequately consulted on Bill 80 have is the fact that this legislation does intrude into the democratic internal affairs of trade unions. They feel that this is an unprecedented intrusion by a government that they always thought was very sympathetic to the trade union movement and they're most concerned about that intrusion.

Secondly, they are very concerned that this passes to the Ontario Labour Relations Board the responsibility of exercising the powers contained in the affected trade unions' constitutions. We all know that the OLRB is overburdened at the present time, and there is grave concern that the OLRB may not have the will or the necessary expertise even to take on this responsibility. Certainly for the unions that's a major concern.

Of course, the third question that they are still asking today and have continued to ask is, why have the building trade unions been singled out for this flagrant interference in the democratic internal affairs of trade unions?

These are some of the questions that have been raised now in the course of this year, 1993, and last year since the first reading of the bill in June 25, 1992. Unfortunately, the minister has never given the reason as to why the bill was introduced.

It's interesting, though, because I have received some feedback not only from the government members but also from individuals who are supportive of Bill 80. This is the type of information that I am receiving, "We can't really tell you why there's a need for Bill 80." Part of the reason is that the people are afraid to speak out or that they are afraid to vote against the international unions because they fear retribution, because they feel intimidated.

It's interesting that the NDP members are now saying themselves that during a vote that is not a secret ballot vote there is intimidation, that there can be harassment and that one of the reasons for this legislation is to deal with that particular problem. Yet when we were discussing Bill 40, the contentious labour bill, I called for secret ballot votes for all Ontario workers, I indicated repeatedly that workers were asking me for the secret ballot opportunity, and the government said: "Oh, no, that's not necessary. There is never intimidation. There is never harassment."

I'd just like to state what I said when I introduced my bill. I said I strongly believe that if we are to have fairness and equality, as the Minister of Labour has indicated he desires, all workers in this province should have the right to a free and democratic vote. Workers should have the right to decide for themselves, free of any interference or intimidation from any source, whether or not to have a union represent them, to accept a contract or to go on strike. Obviously, a secret ballot vote is the only fair way of allowing them to do so.

Unfortunately, the government saw no need at that time to support the need for a secret ballot vote, and now I'm hearing from the government members themselves: "Don't believe what you're hearing about all the support for Bill 80 because it's really not there, because people felt intimidated. The international people were there and they felt they had to vote a certain way." If you had supported my call for secret ballot votes, this type of information would not now be circulating behind closed doors and people would be able to speak a little more honestly.

When the Minister of Labour says that Bill 80 is going to bring and promote greater democracy and freedom, if he had supported my request for the secret ballot vote, we certainly would have had greater democracy and we would have had greater freedom. Many of the problems that supposedly are there could have been dealt with, but it seems that the government talks out of both sides of its mouth. Now suddenly we bring in Bill 80 to protect these people who supposedly have voted one way but really didn't want to and only did so because they felt intimidated.

I talked yesterday on the six major issues and I'm not going to review them again today. I indicated yesterday the content of each issue, what it spoke to, what the government's reason appeared to be for supporting that particular issue, and also the concerns the unions had concerning those issues.

We need to remember that what is involved here is the future of 15 unions in this province which represent approximately 130,000 building trade workers and millions of dollars in union dues, union dues that presently do flow to the international parents. Certainly those are the people who are going to be impacted by this bill and, unfortunately, not all of those individuals feel there's been adequate discussion.

For example, the predominant player in the construction marketplace, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, has indicated it was never, ever consulted prior to the introduction of Bill 80. In fact, they make many of the same arguments that the business community made around Bill 40, indicating that there is no justification, no need for the changes; indicating that the minister did not consult with all the people who are going to be impacted by the bill, especially the key players; and also, of course, making the point that this bill will have a negative impact on investment in the construction industry.

Yesterday, I also talked about some of the pros and cons of the legislation, and I just want to summarize. The people who are supporting the bill tell us the amendments constitute some internal union housecleaning amendments. Those opposed tell us that Bill 80 is comprised of a set of amendments that, if implemented, has the potential to dramatically alter the course of labour relations in the construction industry.

Those in support say that the amendments would also give Ontario locals the basic democratic right to choose whether or not they wish to disaffiliate themselves from an international parent, just as all industrial unions, such as the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, are able to do.

We have opposition to Bill 80 saying: "Succession will create splintered rival groups across the province, creating confusion and tension that is not needed in the construction sector. These provisions impose an unprecedented 365-day-per-year rating period on building trade unions, singling them out for treatment unparalleled in any jurisdiction in Canada."

We have supporters of Bill 80 telling us: "A related provision prevents the international from assuming supervision over a local union without just cause. This provision ensures that duly elected local officials are protected from arbitrary dismissal or penalty."

We have the opponents of Bill 80 telling us: "We agree that supervision or control should only be for cause. This is covered by rules in constitutions. The bill, of course, will override the constitutions."

We have the supporters of Bill 80 telling us: "It is important to realize that while Bill 80 will empower construction locals to disaffiliate if they choose, there is no reason to expect mass disaffiliation. In fact, Bill 80 may very well lead to a stabilizing of relations between the locals and their international parents."

The opponents of Bill 80 say: "Bill 80, far from being in the tradition of promoting stability, threatens to dismantle the real accomplishments of previous amendments. Fragmentation, rivalry and loss of business confidence are the likely fruits of this latest initiative."

Those who support the bill tell us: "Some of the internationals have criticized the government for a lack of consultation. Consultation was conducted in a confidential manner to prevent the internationals from carrying out reprisals against the locals for their support of Bill 80."

The opponents of Bill 80 tell us, "The predominant players in the construction marketplace, that is, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, was not consulted for the introduction of Bill 80."

Finally, the supporters of Bill 80 tell us: "Some local members are reluctant to publicize their support for Bill 80 due to fear of retribution from the internationals. We know, however, through our grass-roots communications, that Bill 80 is broadly supported."

Opponents to Bill 80 say: "These people say that if Bill 80 is not passed as is, then there will be retribution from the international officials. This is a blatant lie. Nobody has ever threatened retribution, nor do they intend to."

You can see that there is a lively debate on Bill 80 within the unions that are impacted by the legislation. It is a very contentious issue. It is an issue that certainly should have been handled much more effectively by the Minister of Labour. If he had really been sincere in his endeavours to deal with the construction industry, resolve the problems that had been presented to him, he would have brought in both sides for discussion, for debate, for consultation, and then as a result of the consultation, he would have made changes, not necessarily through legislation but through some other means. These problems could have been resolved.

However, given that we now have before us Bill 80, it is obvious that it's absolutely necessary that this bill go out to committee for hearings. It's absolutely essential that the people who are going to be impacted by the legislation have an opportunity to talk to the pros and cons of the bill. Then it's necessary for this government and this minister to listen to the viewpoints that are expressed and to come up with amendments, or support the amendments of the opposition, that will indeed truly reflect the majority of people who are going to be impacted by this legislation.

It's important that the majority in this province feels, at the end of the day, that there has been real consultation, that there has been an attempt to listen to all the viewpoints and that the resulting legislation truly addresses all of the concerns that have been expressed. If that's not the case, I believe we are going to have a lack of confidence in investment and we're going to see some chaos within the industry.

On that note, I'm going to conclude my remarks. I simply say again that it's most unfortunate that the minister did not originally consult with the major players who are going to be impacted by the bill, it's unfortunate that he only consulted with those who were called dissidents or those who were looking for this piece of legislation, because what we have here is a bill that has divided the industry; it has created a tremendous amount of chaos. I would hope that in the next round of discussion, the minister truly will consult and will truly come forward with amendments that reflect the viewpoints of all concerned.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'd like to thank the member for Waterloo North for her participation in this debate. It's fairly balanced; she had people in support and people in opposition.

A lot of consultation has taken place since the bill was first introduced. The idea of consulting with the people who were in favour with Bill 80 was that they were the ones who were unhappy with the international parents. The ones who were happy with the international parents obviously didn't have the concerns so didn't come forward for the consultation process, and that's why they didn't have a lot of input during that time.

The member for Waterloo North has asked for an example of interference. We have a letter that was sent to all members of the provincial Parliament. It's from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1788.

It says they have "received a document dated May 6, 1993 signed by J.G. Knight, K. Woods and R. Tersigni, which attempts to remove Local 1788's jurisdiction over work on miscellaneous hydraulic projects....

"Signing this document and attempting to take away the jurisdiction of Local 1788 is contrary to Bill 80, which is presently before the Legislature and which, when it becomes law, will be effective June 25, 1992. Under that law, any amendment to the jurisdiction of a local union done in a manner that the May 6 letter attempts to do is prohibited....

"This is exactly the kind of arbitrary action exercised by international construction unions and assisted by compliant employers which Bill 80 is supposed to protect us against. We intend to use Bill 80."

There's another example of why this legislation is necessary.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to rise and speak briefly to the speech that was given by my colleague our critic for Labour, the member for Waterloo North. She did an outstanding job, as she always does, a very thorough and positive, constructive presentation.

I had a meeting today with Alexandra Dagg, who is the manager of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union of Ontario. She is putting forward the view that there should be amendments to the Employment Standards Act. About a year ago, at an Ontario Federation of Labour women's conference, the Minister of Labour promised to introduce new legislative amendments to the Employment Standards Act in early 1993, early this year, to improve the wages and working conditions of home workers.

I recall this very well because I was also invited to that OFL women's conference and spoke on behalf of our party at that convention; I was there, and the minister promised that there would be amendments coming forward to assist the home workers.

Ms Dagg, in her letter to me, indicates:

"Home workers need this new legislation and should not be expected to wait any longer. Without greater protection and better enforcement, home workers will face an even greater erosion of minimal standards. Home work is one of the most rapidly expanding, precarious sectors in the Ontario labour market. Presently, home workers, who are mainly immigrant women, are treated as second-class workers in Ontario."

This is what Alexandra Dagg writes to me, and I met with her this morning. That position has also been endorsed by the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Minister of Labour made a commitment to those people that there would be amendments brought forward to assist them. That has not happened. I don't understand the government's legislative priorities when something like Bill 80 -- and the member for Waterloo North has indicated very clearly there's absolutely no explanation from the government as to why, when so many people are losing their jobs today, this bill is a priority, and why other outstanding commitments have not been met.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'd firstly like to compliment the member for Waterloo North who, I think all sides of the House would agree, offers what I consider to be very good insights into the pieces of legislation that come under her domain as the critic in our party for Labour.

I would move on too to suggest that a couple of comments she made I thought were rather germane. It reflects back on some of the previous legislation this government has brought forward. It is rather disconcerting, I think, to the general public out there to see the absolute reversals or about-faces this government takes on legislation.

I recall vividly during the debate on the labour legislation how there was little, if any, concern with respect to the secret ballot, as pointed out by the member for Waterloo North, absolutely no concern about the secret ballot when it came to ratification or institution of a new union. You said, "Oh, no; no intimidation took place at that level." Yet, when we talk about this piece of legislation, similar in that nature, the very concern is raised by the government itself about intimidation with respect to ratification of a union.

That is really concerning to me and I'm sure the constituents, how you can say on one hand that is not a concern yet not a year later tell us now that's a major concern in another union.

The other concern I have is with the Minister of Labour himself. I think to offer up the changes to this piece of legislation as amendments is somewhat unfair. It's unfair to us in opposition and unfair to the public out there. This bill has been practically rewritten. If you look at the amendments and the changes, there are literally chunks out of this piece of legislation that have been changed very dramatically. I think everyone would agree. Truly, if you wanted to bring this forward in the good, non-partisan approach, this package should have been introduced as a new bill.

We should have started again, because fundamentally with these amendments, you have simply just asked us to debate today a brand-new piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments? The member for Waterloo North, you have two minutes to reply.

Mrs Witmer: I'd certainly like to thank the speakers who have participated in the debate and I say to the parliamentary assistant from Kitchener-Wilmot, I'm pleased that the government is finally trying at least to demonstrate some need for the legislation. Since yesterday, he has introduced three examples and obviously, I think those issues could have been resolved if there had been discussion between the two sides, those that are pro- and those that are anti-Bill 80. I don't think it necessarily needs to be resolved in the form of this particular piece of legislation.

I would just like to piggyback on what the member for Etobicoke West said, and that is, we do have here a totally new piece of legislation. The supposed amendments that were given to us yesterday contain deletions, a few changes, but it is a totally and radically new bill. Unfortunately, the government did not see fit to introduce it as a new bill because it didn't want to because it wouldn't be retroactive to July 25, 1992. That's why we simply have these particular amendments and not a new bill.

But I think it really is most unfair and again, I would say to the government, I hope that when we do embark in the public hearings that truly this time -- you didn't do so on Bill 40 and certainly you haven't done so in the employment equity hearings -- you are prepared to listen to all sides and I hope that you are prepared to incorporate the amendments based on the information that you receive from the individuals making presentations. I guess that's what I find very frustrating: to spend weeks in public hearings and not see any change in the legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'm very pleased to rise this afternoon and speak on Bill 80,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. Bill 80, of course, is a companion piece to Bill 40, which was lengthily discussed last year. I had some dealings with a Bill 40 recently, but that was on community economic development. This is Bill 80, which is to do with labour, as the earlier Bill 40 was.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the construction trades and some of the comments I've heard from the members opposite. We're moving along. We've talked about the Labour Relations Act amendments, how important they were to the lives of working people in our province; Bill 40 more recently, the community economic development bill, how important that is to building community infrastructure, to building our communities and our economy; and Bill 80 here, which deals with international trade unions in the construction and building trades.

I've heard from the members opposite, I've heard from the member from the official opposition, about how construction workers were lining up to get out of Ontario. Well, I don't think there can be anything farther from the truth, when the Minister of Economic Development and Trade has only recently had to introduce rules and regulations to restrict Quebec construction workers, Quebec building workers, from entering this province.

The efforts in our province to create jobs have been fruitful, even in very, very difficult times. Those efforts are much more fruitful, as we can see, than in other provinces, where much higher levels of unemployment are occurring in the construction trades. The construction trades are essential, and they are essential recipients of our government's investment in infrastructure, in social housing.

In my riding alone, our government has invested in significant ways. We have Durham College, its expansion, which will create 140 ongoing jobs with a new campus in Whitby. That facility is devoted entirely to skills training, to those very areas that this bill deals with.

We also have some 2,200 new jobs at the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital in my riding, again infrastructure, construction jobs, trades jobs. I know that certainly in my area, the many construction trade workers who have come to me, who have talked to me about Bill 80, have been so pleased with that kind of investment in infrastructure that our government has invested in. The GO train extension to Oshawa: again, those same workers.

The issues have been raised time and time again about the importance of enabling that this bill offers, just as Bill 40 did, which was passed last year. The protection of workers, giving them rights here in the construction and building trades -- these are very important rights, rights that workers in other areas have already learned to enjoy with this government's work.

We wonder, why Bill 80? Why is it important for the construction trades?

Mr Stockwell: Why?

Mr White: That's an excellent question you pose. The issue with Bill 80 is that construction trades are differently organized and differently structured than are other labour unions. They have, for example, a practice of hiring that comes out of a tradition of a hiring hall, of a seniority issue, as opposed to a shop, where all of the employees in the shop are members of a trade union, such as an industrial union. So they are more subject to actions on behalf of their union in terms of their hiring, their very livelihood. Obviously here, if workers are afraid of intimidation, that can be very real. They can be afraid of being intimidated by the practices of their international union.

These unions are all international. When we say "international unions," of course, we're not talking of unions that have tenterhooks in all nations of the world but primarily American-based international unions. I certainly have in my area a long tradition with those international unions.

I've seen the constitutions of several of these construction trade unions. The people who have approached me have said: "Gee, I have a lot of difficulties with this. It says right here in the constitution, if we gather in more than two or three, we can lose our privileges. We can have action taken against us." So we wonder why it is that the opposition has this long list of letters, of concerns that have been cited.

The question has been brought up about who is supporting Bill 80. I think Bill 80 has a great deal of support. I know this from the many, many, many people who have approached me individually, the number of petitions I've received, the number of letters and phone calls, the number of approaches.

As a member of the provincial Parliament, let me tell you what my experience is, as I'm sure yours has been. That is, very simply, that when a bill comes forth, what one typically hears is not the support of those who want that bill to come forth. People don't rush to you and say, "Gee, am I ever pleased that you're passing Bill 32," or whatever it might be.

Certainly, last year, with Bill 40, the Ontario Labour Relations Act, we knew we had substantive support across the labour movement but we didn't hear that time and time again. Every time I spoke to someone at the door, they didn't say, "Boy, am I ever pleased that you're passing Bill 40."

On that occasion, with Bill 40, we heard all kinds of people saying what a terrible thing it was, all kinds of money paid for huge advertising ploys, how Bill 40 would kill jobs.

Well, I'll tell you, Bill 40 not only did not kill jobs, but despite all that fallacious advertising, in the month of January this year when that bill came into effect, at that time when 285,000 jobs were supposed to be killed according to the construction association -- according to these people, all these jobs were going to be killed, all of these people were going to be unemployed -- peculiarly enough, in that very month that bill came into effect, actually 43,000 new jobs were created, the largest number for many, many years. What a remarkable coincidence.

As I was saying, when a bill comes forth, we hear all the opposition to it, not the support for it. In this case, what I have heard and what I know many of my colleagues have heard time and time again from labourers, from electricians, what they have all come to us and said is: "Don't tell everyone around me, but we want this bill. It's so important to us. It allows us some sense of control of our local and of our destiny, some dignity in our workplace, some protection of our geographic and work jurisdiction." Those are essential issues of dignity.

The issue has been brought forth about consultation. This bill was introduced on June 25; not July 25 as we heard a few moments ago, but June 25, 1992. I would invite you to take a look at this sheet, Mr Speaker. You can certainly see that this is not a new bill. It's been with us for quite a while.

In the last year and a half since its introduction, there has been substantive consultation and substantive discussion about the bill and how to adapt it. We've already heard in fact that when the discussion came up on Monday, the opposition was furious because they knew that amendments were coming forth. They knew that our government listens and responds and has dealt with many of the concerns that some of the international unions have brought forth and has adjusted it to make it more sensible and practicable.

These are some of the issues that I think are crucial with this bill. We know of its wide support and we know of course that the construction and building trades are essential to the importance of infrastructure, the importance of investments, the kind of community action and economic development that our government is pinning into for the next little while.

Certainly, again, in my area we know how important those developments are with the social housing, with the number of co-ops, with Whitby Psychiatric Hospital and Durham College, with those substantive capital investments in our community which the construction trades unions and their members are essentially involved in. Why, in these days, were it not for some of those projects, very, very many of those people would be unemployed. They are very, very involved in ensuring that those capital projects go ahead. I would hope that these people can be sure of the same level of dignity and democratic control in their trade unions that we have ensured for the rest of the workers in this province.

With that, I will close and thank my colleagues for their kind attention.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Stockwell: That was a rather curious speech offered up by the member for Durham Centre. That seemed to answer probably the concerns that he has in his mind, but I thought some of the issues outlined by the critic from the Liberal Party and of course the critic from the Conservative Party touched on a number of issues and a number of subjects that weren't addressed by the member. I ask but two.

What we have before us today and what was introduced on June 25, 1992, are two very different pieces of legislation. The amendments themselves in fact have gutted the original piece to the point that it's unrecognizable. Can I ask the member to explain why they did not introduce a new piece of legislation? In essence, how come we can't get a new piece of legislation introduced for this bill when they gutted it to such a large degree with the amendments they offered up?

Secondly, explain to me the difference as to why it is that you don't need a secret ballot in your labour legislation when you're forming a union or dealing with any votes within a union, but on this piece of legislation it is significant and important. It's difficult, I'm sure, to explain, but why is it significant and important to have a secret ballot when you're dealing with the issues in this piece of legislation? Clearly they're both unions, clearly they're both dealing with the same issues, yet one needs a secret ballot and the other one doesn't. I don't understand. There appears to be a contradiction in that.

Those may be two issues he'd like to discuss. I'm not really certain what Durham College had to do with it, and if he has any time left over, if he could explain that, I'd really find that interesting as well.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I find it interesting when I hear the members of the back bench in the NDP standing up to speak in support of this bill, saying that they've received phone calls and letters or that they haven't received them --

Mr Stockwell: But they can't tell you the names.

Mr Mahoney: -- but, yes, they can't tell you the names. We've asked for examples. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot got up yesterday and gave us an example of an issue that was long ago resolved, that's not a problem at all, and yet you're trying to hold that up as being the raison d'être for bringing in this bill. The bottom line and the thing that is very hard to understand is that the process, the democratic process, has really been violated here.

I could just hear all of you, if you were back in your other lives as members of a local or a union executive somewhere prior to your surprise election to this place. I could just hear you. I could hear the former -- I'm not sure what her title was, the minister who used to head up OPSEU. I could just hear her if there was some attempt by a government to try to interfere in the constitution that was drawn up by the duly elected, democratically elected officials of her union or any of your unions. You wouldn't tolerate it, you would certainly not defend it and you would not expect it of a socialist government.

You would be marching right up University Avenue. You would have Bob Rae and Bob Mackenzie leading the march with placards calling for the government to resign, to stay out of internal union politics.

You know what? If you did that, I'd agree with you. The government has no place interfering in a democratic system that is set up by the trade labour movement. It's functioning fine. You should get out of it and leave them alone.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's always of interest to me, when the New Democrats mobilize their back bench to speak, that they don't always answer all of the questions that are in the minds of the people out in the countryside. I don't understand, and perhaps the member for Durham Centre will explain to me, why this is just limited to the construction union membership. Why isn't this applied to the general union membership?

When he attempts to explain that, I think we will then begin to understand whether or not he understands the real workings of union memberships in the province of Ontario. The differentiation between one group of people and another for the purposes of fair treatment and the use of democratic principles inside their organizations is of interest to all of us.

I just want the member, while he is explaining that, to go as far back into the background as he needs so that we're sure that the women and men who are affiliated with construction unions are not being unfairly set aside or penalized or being centred out for treatment which is not good for all the people who are members of unions. That issue of fa