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

October 21, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN POLICE SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I wish to bring the attention of the House to a very serious problem in a small town in my riding, Sioux Lookout. I must say that this deserves the immediate attention of this government, especially the Solicitor General and the Attorney General.

The Solicitor General will recall my statement of June 8 when I pointed out the need for additional OPP services in the community of Sioux Lookout. As well, various ministers have received correspondence from myself on behalf of the Sioux Lookout Street Patrol.

Today a crisis exists in Sioux Lookout and I appeal to the present NDP government for help. If we take a look at some statistics, between January 1, 1992, and September 30, 1992, there were 271 assaults reported to the Sioux Lookout detachment of the OPP in this small community.

Not only are the citizens of Sioux Lookout upset, but let me quote to you the judge's response to this situation:

"Speaking from the bench last Tuesday in Sioux Lookout, provincial court Justice Roderick Flaherty denounced the rise in assault charges stemming from the violence on Sioux Lookout's streets.

"Calling the situation 'intolerable' and 'overwhelming,' Justice Flaherty had harsh words for the people appearing before him on assault charges."

He goes on to say, "The predominance of violence in this community is overwhelming."

Again, I must repeat my appeal to this government, especially to the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, for immediate action to take care of this situation existing in the town of Sioux Lookout.

POLICE USE OF FIREARMS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Solicitor General. It concerns this government's introduction of restrictions on police firearm use.

Police forces in Simcoe county, like those throughout the rest of Ontario, will be confronted with these new restrictions effective January 1, 1993. Our police officers are worried about being killed if they are hesitant about using their weapons in dangerous situations.

The new restrictions are obviously the NDP government's knee-jerk response to groups that have been calling for more controls on police gun use. This government has accused some police forces of being trigger-happy in their dealings with some minority groups. If the NDP government seriously believes that racism is the problem, imposing firearm restrictions on our police officers is not the way to deal with it.

The NDP government has chosen to respond to the desires of specific interest groups and failed to meet the primary concern of the majority of the public, which is to ensure the protection of law-abiding citizens and the officers themselves.

As the crime rate soars in Ontario, the people of Simcoe county find the NDP government focusing its attention on questioning the integrity of police officers, cutting back on police force budgets and imposing firearm restrictions on our men and women in blue.

The NDP government's priorities are clearly misguided and misplaced. Don't you think you should be doing something positive to help our police officers fight crime and protect the law-abiding citizens in the province of Ontario?

STUDENT FORUM

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Yesterday, Premier Bob Rae, the Prime Minister of Canada and first nations Chief Ovide Mercredi were in Guelph to open the unity forum at Our Lady of Lourdes high school in Guelph. The title of the forum is Forum '92, Unity in Diversity: The Charlottetown Accord. This forum brings together student delegations from every province, the Northwest Territories and first nations. They will discuss the new constitutional package and challenges facing Canada. Their aim is to formulate resolutions to renew and reconstruct the federation.

This is the fourth unity forum organized by history teacher Joe Tersigni, and it has promoted dialogue and understanding among young Canadians about Canada's future. Last year, after three days of sometimes heated debate, the students passed three resolutions: firstly, that Quebec be granted "distinct society" status; secondly, that we recognize the aboriginal right to self-government, and thirdly, that the Prime Minister call an immediate first ministers' conference, which includes aboriginal delegates, to solve our constitutional crisis. These came to pass.

This program, Our Future Together, spells out many key objectives of the forum. Let me quote what one of those objectives is: "to appreciate the value of our differences and to recognize the existence of a diversity of opinion."

These young students are showing the way to the rest of Canadians by finding out exactly what is in the Charlottetown accord.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'm rising on a matter of urgent public concern. Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington has just been told that the Ministry of Health will provide about 10% of the equity funding that it needs to operate. As a result, it can no longer provide the services necessary to operate as a community hospital.

Other hospitals in Ontario are moving to the ministry target of 850 patient-days per 1,000. Joseph Brant hospital is now operating at 300 patient-days per 1,000 below the ministry target.

There's no room for the hospital to move. It can't close any more beds. It can't decrease staff any more than it already has. Given its facilities, it can't increase day surgery or ambulatory care any further. It can't move patients out of the hospital setting any earlier than it is now doing. It cannot move patients into community-based facilities because there are none. It cannot put off the refurbishing or replacement of medical equipment any more than it already has.

The Minister of Health has said that it also can't operate with a deficit. The Minister of Health had better find some more money for Joseph Brant hospital, because it can no longer operate as a community hospital. It can no longer place patients who require urgent admission and can no longer provide the services needed, at an acceptable level of quality, in the hospital's catchment area.

People in my community are at risk. I'm demanding an immediate review of this situation and the appropriate amount of Ministry of Health funding so that Joseph Brant hospital can provide the services that are urgently needed in my community.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Today, I would like to report to the Legislature, to the people of Ontario and especially to the people of York, Durham, Peel and Metropolitan Toronto that the first ever dump summit was held this week at Canada's largest landfill site, the Keele Valley landfill site in the city of Vaughan in York region.

The dump summit was attended by representatives from the 12 different groups working hard to protect communities from this government's action. Each of the dumps was represented at this meeting, and we had an opportunity to learn what each of the groups is doing with regard to this major battle that's under way. It's been under way for almost a year right now, since Minister Grier brought in Bill 143, which mandates three large megadumps in York, Durham and Peel.

The people of these areas are representing themselves and coming forward to the people of Ontario to make sure that this province and this government understand that the people are angry and frustrated at the way this government is going to force large megadumps in the urban shadow of Metropolitan Toronto.

The battle plans are under way. If this government thinks it's going to railroad these dumps right into our communities, it's wrong. These communities are ready for battle. This government will not get away with it. The public is going to rally around the cause and make sure that these landfill sites are not brought into these communities, and destroy our land values and fail to understand the significant consequences of these sites.

ST CLAIR COLLEGE

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm pleased to inform the members of this Legislature that Windsor has been and continues to celebrate its 100th birthday. Another celebration is coming up and this time St Clair College is the host and sponsor of the Silver Gala Dinner and Dance. This Friday, October 23, the Silver Gala dinner will be hosted at St Clair College in Windsor. The guests will enjoy a seven-course meal and dance to a 20-piece concert band. As well, the Windsor Community Concert Band will entertain during the dinner.

At the same event, we will honour all the dedication and hard work that the college has done for the city of Windsor in the past 25 years.

I'd like to invite Windsorites, both past and present, to attend the gala and help make a significant contribution to the future success of the city of Windsor, the province of Ontario, and of course Canada. Say yes to Canada and yes to the Silver Gala celebrations.

Windsor's 1992 centennial committee means dedication and it should be congratulated, along with the hardworking city of Windsor team. The all-star team spent this year putting together a memorable party for the citizens of Windsor. They have offered memories which will linger for many years to come.

I offer personal accolades to the mayor's office, the centennial committee, St Clair College and all those who have worked endlessly throughout the year to give Windsor a feeling we will for ever cherish.

On behalf of my Windsor colleagues, we wish Windsor a very heartfelt happy birthday.

BOB MCCANN

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In all of our communities across the province of Ontario, there are individuals who make a significant contribution to the welfare and to the lifestyle of the community in which they reside. One such person is Bob McCann who is the president of St Catharines General Hospital. Mr McCann has been the president for the past decade and he informed the board of governors in September of this year that he would be retiring in March.

Mr McCann has been at the General for more than three decades and he's bringing his career to an end in part because he has seen two major dreams realized, dreams that were important to patients throughout the Niagara Peninsula and specifically in St Catharines; that is, the go-ahead for a huge hospital expansion and emergency redevelopment. They have an emergency department at St Catharines which has been chronically undersized and not adequate. Mr McCann has fought for the transformation of that over the years. It is coming to fruition.

The second is a brand-new Moore-McSloy chronic care wing. Mr McCann was impressed negatively by the appalling conditions that existed in that particular wing and fought very hard with all of us who are in public office and certainly with the Ministry of Health to ensure that was changed.

Because of the contribution made by Mr McCann to St Catharines General Hospital, it serves our community far better than it could have without his assistance.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to bring to the attention of this House my concerns with Bill 40 and how this NDP government is ramming it through both the Legislature and committee.

The changes to the rules of debate that this government chose to bring forward after introducing Bill 40 has limited my abilities as a member of this Legislature. I have not been given the opportunity to debate this bill in the House because of the new time allocations and the limiting of debate.

The public has also been left out of much of the discussion, with over 1,000 people being turned away from being involved at the public hearings.

Both myself and the NDP of Dufferin-Peel are also being shortchanged because of your "trust me" attitude. I have been asked by the local NDP riding association of Dufferin-Peel to be involved in a debate of Bill 40 next Thursday with Leo Gerard, Ontario director of the United Steelworkers of America and vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress.

You have not only limited my ability as an opposition member but also the people of Dufferin-Peel and Ontario to educate and inform themselves on this bill. You may have introduced these rule changes to cut the opposition's voice, but in fact at the same time you have limited the public's voice as well. Bill 40 will probably be law by next Thursday when I debate Bill 40 with Mr Gerard. You are not giving your own people an opportunity to find out about this legislation in a non-partisan, public discussion that would educate the people of Dufferin-Peel about the repercussions of this legislation.

It is no wonder that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has introduced a computer program that will evaluate bills and legislation that governments are bringing forward.

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): It's a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today and to give public thanks to a number of groups in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton that have been kind enough to allow for forums to be established where the issue of the referendum could be discussed. In particular, I'd like to thank the Lindsay Collegiate and Vocational Institute. I'd like to thank also Sir Sandford Fleming college. I'd like to thank the county council of Haliburton county, and also the Citizens' Open Circle from Fenelon Falls. In all these cases they have provided forums where people have been able to come and hear about the various elements of the Charlottetown accord.

There's no question that there has been a great deal of controversy about the accord, and there's no question that there's been a great deal of debate. It has been my honour and my privilege to have the opportunity of standing on the Yes side and indicating the reasons to people in my riding and beyond my riding why I support the Charlottetown accord and believe that it is the direction that we need to move in as citizens of Canada and Ontario.

In particular, I want to say about this accord and this time that we've had to discuss it that if Canadians indeed have a vision of the future and if they dream about their country and the direction that they want to go in, then they need to take this time to hear this debate, get involved in this debate, learn about the accord, and hopefully on October 26 give a Yes vote for Canada.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would invite all members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon a very special guest from Finland, the deputy speaker, Mrs Olander, who is joined by her husband, Mr Olander. Ms Shalden is coordinating this very special visit. Welcome to our gallery.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): And in the members' gallery, the member for Welland-Thorold.

The Speaker: He may be joining us later.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Labour.

Minister, today at least five members of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency are announcing their resignations from the board because of interference from your government. Our information is that an important issue of training was forced to a vote without the serious concerns of employer groups being listened to.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The decision regarding the hours of training for certification was made through a vote, and that provision is allowed for in the by-laws of the agency. The two vice-chairs from management and labour jointly decided to successfully resolve the issue. While the ministry has encouraged the agency in its efforts to work out the hours-of-training issue, there has never been any interference or authority exercised. The agency has remained true to the spirit of bipartism.

I think it's important to point out that we feel it important to carry on with the good work of the last, Liberal government in here, which set up the agency. It has been two years since the Occupational Health and Safety Act was amended, and it was clearly time to move. It's unfortunate, I think, that some members did feel that they could not support --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- the issue that had reached general agreement at the agency.

Mrs McLeod: Well, at least the minister has recognized that the resignations today constitute such a serious issue that he has come prepared with a response in order to try and minimize the damage which has been created. But I would suggest to the minister that what is strictly allowed by the rules and what constitutes effective cooperation and collaboration are two very different things; at least, they used to be.

Minister, I would refer to the agency's management advisory committee spokesperson, Shelly Schlueter, who says that these resignations leave the future of the agency very much in doubt. She says the process currently being pursued at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, with the involvement and backing of the Ontario government, is on a direct collision course with the agency's stated objectives of reducing accidents and diseases in every workplace in the province.

Minister, will you not admit that your direct and unwarranted interventions have resulted in a crisis which could seriously affect workplace health and safety in this province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the leader of the official opposition that I reject her charge that we deliberately intervened. I have, and I make it very clear to this House, indicated that I spoke to the full board, both parties of the agency, back in May, when we heard that they might not be able to meet their own deadlines of June, and urged them to do so, and that has been the extent of the involvement in it.

I might also point out to the leader of the official opposition that the delay, now several months overdue, in getting certification and health and training programs in place has seen, for example, five deaths in the last week. It's long past time we had this two-year effort we've been on in place in the workplaces of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, the fact is that these responsible individuals who entered into the work of the agency with a desire to bring about cooperative bipartite planning have been forced to resign. They've taken the difficult step of going public with their concerns because of their great fear that workplace health and safety is in fact going to be jeopardized, and that their concerns could not be heard in any way other than through their public resignations.

Minister, I ask you then, why do you believe their resignations have been necessary? And now that you have created this mess, what steps are you going to take to restore confidence in the Workplace Health and Safety Agency as a truly bipartite body that is free of government interference?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: One of the things that's rather interesting is that the motion and the recommendation were moved by a management member and seconded by a management member at the agency. It seems to me that the fact that some people find it difficult to make decisions is not a reason why we go several months past the deadline dates and still have no action taken. That's a responsibility I've got as minister, to see that we do something about the health and safety conditions in Ontario.

The Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I'll continue to raise this issue with the Minister of Labour. The minister is well aware that this agency was set up, admittedly by a previous government, as a balanced, bipartite body that would allow both management and labour to deal effectively with the very serious issues -- and we agree they are serious issues -- of workplace health and safety.

But we remember once before when this minister set up a bipartite committee in order to deal with labour relations in the province, and that particular bipartite committee simply could not be allowed to work and to complete its job.

I ask the minister if he would not admit that this is yet another example of a complete breakdown in the effort to have a bipartite body work effectively. Will he again not admit that his interference in and mishandling of this situation has jeopardized a process that should have worked to protect the interests of health and safety of workers in the province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The leader of the official opposition should understand that we have been able to make most decisions at the agency on a consensual basis up until now, and that's certainly what we would like to see happen. But when we reach a point in the centrepiece of the agency's work, which is health and safety certification processes, and you can't reach an agreement within the agency board, they have to make a decision. They can come to the minister and say, "You make the decision," or they can decide to take up the issue themselves and force a vote, which is allowed in the bylaws of the agency. They made that decision.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you use all the words, but the reality is that in no instance has the effort to have bipartite planning been allowed to work by you or by your government. Minister, I would remind you of Bill 40, where the result of your insistence on pushing forward your legislation has polarized labour and management in this province, and where you continue to refuse to let the tripartite body of labour, management and government even look at the potential impact of that piece of legislation.

I would remind you of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, another example where your government is setting up a bipartite body but which very few people believe will really be allowed to function as a truly bipartite body.

Minister, I wonder why you cannot understand that your attitude towards business, your absolute refusal to hear the concerns of any but union leaders, is making any kind of cooperative planning truly impossible. Minister, why are you determined to do everything in your power to drive business and labour apart in this province?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Lyn, what would you do?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You don't know.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I wonder why we had to carry coffins around. To wake the Liberals up.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): All you've done is create interference.

Mr Hope: That is exactly why we had to do it; to wake things up.

Mr Offer: Don't you realize they've resigned?

Mrs Caplan: They've resigned because of your incompetence.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it's unfortunate that the leader of the official opposition would try to drag Bill 40 or training boards or any other programs into what has been a relatively successful effort in this province to try to come up with healthier and safer workplaces in the province, and I reject her charges. What I am trying to do is see that we come up with something that does allow us to cut down on the deaths and injuries in the workplace. That's the intent of the agency and the work that's involved with it.

I might point out once again, the motion that was moved was moved by a management member and seconded by a management member. I don't know whether she's rejecting their recommendations totally or not.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, what I'm concerned about is the fact that it is very obvious today that what was set up to be an effective bipartite process has broken down.

Minister, the government House leader called across and said, "What would you do?" I'll tell you what we did. We set up this bipartite agency because we were concerned about workers' health and safety, about health and safety in the workplace. But what would we have done? We'd have let that agency work. We believed it could bring about exactly the kind of results you are saying today it is supposed to bring about.

Minister, we are concerned because as we see this process breaking down, it seems to us that the facts are clear to anyone who does not have your particular set of blinders on. You have not let this agency function in a balanced way and the management representatives on the agency have given up.

Minister, when are you going to realize that it is you and your policies that are the problem? When are you going to take the actions that would be necessary to actually bring business and labour together on the important issues of workers' safety and of economic growth? I don't think the problems are unrelated in the way in which you deal with them and the way in which you create polarization.

Where are you going to go from here, Minister? How are you going to restore the bipartite nature of this agency, and why would anybody believe that you really intend to listen?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It seems to me that we have to continue with the work. I'm not sure if the leader of the official opposition is saying that a program at the agency -- and it's the one area we've had some problems in getting agreement on -- that's now several months overdue should be left to go on for ever, which is what she just said. I have the responsibility for that agency, and I'm not prepared to see that we can't make decisions in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: New question, third party, the member for Waterloo North.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Waterloo North has the floor.

Interjections.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's not even cold today, Mr Speaker. Have a seat.

The Speaker: It's definitely warmer in here today. The member for Waterloo North.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. In your unseemly rush to push Bill 40 through the committee before anyone was aware of what was included there, 62 of the amendments that our party proposed on behalf of over 600 groups and individuals who made presentations this summer were never, ever debated or even read into the minutes. These people, I can tell you, are very disappointed that there was no consultation and that their concerns were rejected without any explanation.

Since there was no opportunity for the members of the committee to even discuss why they were defeating our amendments, I'd like to ask you some questions about some of the amendments that we proposed. It's interesting, you've just told us how supportive you are of public health and safety. I would like you to explain why your party opposed the amendment that the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario requested to

section 32 of the bill concerning that clause's conflict with the Professional Engineers Act and the potential danger to the public's health and safety. APEO believes very strongly that health and safety are not negotiable and should not form a part of the collective bargaining process, and so does our party. Why did you reject that amendment?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Health and safety have got to be part of the legislative process as well as workers' involvement in the workplace. I have difficulty understanding the position of the Labour critic for the third party in the argument she's raised.

I want to tell her that we have consulted widely in this province: over 550 groups and the umbrella groups three times around in my ministry. I've been in this House 17 years and I have not seen another piece of legislation where there's been the kind of consultation we proceeded with as we have on this labour bill.

Mrs Witmer: I can tell you, Mr Minister, that your response does not satisfy the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario. I have their response right here for you. However, I'd like to go on to another amendment, since you feel that you've consulted with so many groups and individuals.

As you know, the Ontario Nurses' Association has requested an amendment to subsection 7(2.4) which would ensure that ONA would be recognized as a professional group, along with the other male-dominated groups, and that its membership could be limited to registered and graduate nurses. ONA was told that if the Ontario Federation of Labour approved of this amendment you would agree to it.

Apparently the OFL refused to discuss this matter with the nurses, and CUPE and OPSEU have opposed this amendment as well. In a letter which the president of ONA sent to you yesterday -- you and I have the same letter -- I quote, "It is nothing short of insulting that this government would allow CUPE to block our amendment without even allowing the courtesy of an explanation or without meeting us to try to resolve it."

While I know that there was a meeting this morning between the interested parties at which OPSEU and CUPE indicated their continued opposition to this amendment, ONA has still not received any reason as to why your government is going to defeat our amendment.

Minister, I intend to reintroduce the amendment today. Do you and your colleagues intend to defeat it again and, if so, why?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Gord Wilson didn't think it was a good idea.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Let me say first that the government heard from ONA very late in the consultation process. Let me also say that joining the professional ranks, in essence, their request -- these groups have not had the right to organize previously. ONA has had the right all along to organize, and to insinuate that it has to get the approval from some outside group is wrong. You can take all of your feelings out on this minister, but I can simply tell you they've had the right to organize. The other professional groups have not had the right to organize.

There are other unions involved in this field and we're going to have to consult with them. We understand the nurses' position, but there are a lot of answers --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- to be received before we move on the issue.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, the nurses of this province deserve a better response than that to this issue. You know this is a fairly straightforward request from the nurses which is only going to serve to maintain the situation which currently exists. ONA wants to preserve the status quo which it feels is meeting its needs. The system is working for the nurses and they cannot understand why you insist on rejecting our amendment. Unfortunately, your answer has done nothing to clarify the position.

Mr Minister, I would like you to tell us why the OFL, OPSEU and CUPE are now apparently dictating government policy. Will you explain to the nurses of Ontario why you refuse to accept their very legitimate and reasonable request for this amendment?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Mr Speaker, the critic --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- for the Conservative Party is ill-informed in her comments on the situation with regard to ONA. We have not closed the door on looking at this, but she has not got the information correct. I can also tell her that if we had listened or if we let the OFL dictate what our policy would be, Bill 40 would look a heck of a lot different than what we're debating in this House today.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health, and given that I understand from the chief government whip that the minister will be arriving shortly, I ask your permission to stand down the second leader's question.

The Speaker: Agreed. Then we revert to the opposition.

TUITION FEES

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Minister, I have here a letter to all the NDP members of Parliament. This letter was signed by a rather illustrious array of your supporters. It includes, among others, Gord Wilson, president, Ontario Federation of Labour; Fred Upshaw, Ontario Public Service Employees Union; Patrick Ryan, Canadian Union of Public Employees; Ken Craft, chair, Ontario Federation of Students, and Saul Ross, president, Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations.

Here's what the letter says. Mr Speaker, it will take a little while, but I think it's very important to have this on the record and I quote:

"We write because we are alarmed about proposals that would add new and potentially insurmountable barriers to post-secondary education for all but the privileged.

"We understand that both significant increases in tuition fees and reductions in the grant portion of the Ontario student assistance plan are under discussion. Proposals have also been discussed to increase the loan funds available under OSAP -- "

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

Mr Daigeler: " -- thus increasing levels of student debt.

"As educators, students and trade unionists, we are appalled by these proposals. They contravene -- "

The Speaker: Would the member place a question.

Mr Daigeler: " -- long-standing NDP policy."

Minister, what are you saying to your NDP backbenchers about these accusations?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): I guess, Mr Speaker, in a moment like this it would be nice if he could ask the backbenchers directly, but of course he can't under the rules of the House. So I'll undertake to answer on their behalf.

This government has stood from the very beginning for the widest possible access to universities and colleges and all post-secondary educational opportunities. In our first year of office, we gave double the average increase for the university system of any other system across the country. We also have instituted programs such as the women's campus safety program. We've added additional money for disabled students' access. We have a post-secondary native student strategy which wasn't there before. We have done a great deal for student access. We have --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Allen: -- increased the Ontario student aid program by about $65 million since we came to office. We are giving every support we possibly can to that system in very difficult circumstances.

Mr Daigeler: If I could ask your backbenchers, I'm sure what they would say is that the commitment of the NDP to student concerns was a mile wide when you were in opposition, but it's only an inch deep when you're in government.

From what you said, Minister, it's clear that you will most likely raise the tuition fees again well beyond the transfer rates as you did last year. Minister, will you at least today commit yourself on very wide consultation before you bring in any radical changes to the OSAP grant program?

Hon Mr Allen: I happen to have been in a consultation mode on that subject since May 1991, and I don't know but that the member opposite would probably criticize me for consulting endlessly if I conducted a further consultation.

We've heard every single recommendation that could possibly be made to us; we've measured that against our economic circumstances; we're reviewing all aspects of student aid; we're looking at student needs; we're looking at the fact that in Ontario over the past 10 years we have lost millions of dollars from the federal government in support of our system. We are having to look at all those factors as we weigh our future course.

This government will not knowingly put future barriers in the way of students, and it will do everything it can to maintain the quality of post-secondary education in Ontario.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Solicitor General. This government's inaction on the policing issue has now forced the position and the situation into a logjam. The Metro police association refuses to stop the job action until the Premier meets with it. The Premier has dug in his heels and will not meet with the association until it ends its protest.

Solicitor General, there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. My question is this: What is your plan of action to end this unfortunate and unnecessary situation?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): It is an unfortunate and unnecessary action, and it would be my hope that the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association would end this job action.

The Metropolitan Toronto chief of police, Mr McCormack, and the police services board have, I understand, sought an injunction in the Supreme Court of Ontario to end this illegal action, and the courts will deal with that particular matter.

As for the Premier, he has indicated clearly that at the time of a cessation of this job action he is more than willing to meet with that association, and I have indicated for approximately the past two weeks that my door is open to discuss this matter and obtain a clarification of the regulation. There have in fact been some significant police authorities that have availed themselves of that opportunity, have obtained that clarification, and I was pleased to pass it to them.

Mr Carr: In other words, the Solicitor General doesn't have a plan.

The civil disobedience displayed by the Metro police is

an act of desperation. This government has shown a total disregard for police officers across this province, and now, even two weeks after the protest, you still have no plan to settle this situation.

Mr Speaker and Solicitor General, my caucus and I would like to propose and put forward a compromise to end the logjam. Would you commit today to allow the police in this province to come before an all-party committee of this Legislature to air their grievances, to have their concerns heard and to get some action from this government? Since you don't have a plan of your own, will you commit to that today, Mr Solicitor General?

Hon Mr Pilkey: We have already in the Ministry of the Solicitor General undertaken significant and broad consultation with stakeholders, including the Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the police service boards and other community groups. All of that was done. The regulations were aired in this particular Legislative Assembly and all of that process has been properly done. The regulation will come into effect on January 1.

The issue of the particular job action by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association is a matter to be dealt with by the Metro chief of police and the services board, and they are doing so. There would be no necessity or reason at this particular time to follow up on the suggestion from the member opposite.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, I'd like to return to a serious matter I raised in your absence yesterday. It concerns the close to 12 million health cards that have been issued by your ministry, which is approximately 2 million more than the population of Ontario.

Outside the Legislature yesterday, you were quick to blame the Liberals, and even admitted, "If anyone applied for a health card under their dog's name, there's a good chance they might have received that health card." Given what we know about how many cards have been issued and the ease with which these cards are obtained, the potential for fraud is staggering.

Minister, I want to know when you were first made aware of the situation, and specifically what did you do to prevent further abuse of the health card system?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I thank the member for the question. I was going to stand on our rotation to provide an answer, because the Treasurer had taken it under rotation.

First of all, there are two points the member raises that I would like to correct. In my comments yesterday I indicated that the previous government, in implementing a changeover from the OHIP number to the Ontario health registration number, at that point in time made a determination not to put a verification of applications in up front, as a system, and to worry about that once the cards had been issued. I indicated that that may have been a decision as a matter of expedience.

In retrospect, in looking at it, it has caused us a problem, and we do have a serious problem of monitoring and verification that needs to take place. I think it is absolutely appropriate to take a look back sometimes and say we could have done something better. This is not simply finger-pointing, and I don't think it's fair to characterize it that way.

What I would say, however, is that the member also needs to get his figures correct. Quite frankly, when we deal with questions from this member in particular, he often has incorrect numbers that he asserts. The 11.9 million cards that have been issued is a number that will continue to grow every day, as new cards are issued every day. What's important to note is that since the time we finished issuing the first set of cards, which was as of last summer, we have put in place verification procedures which have taken well over a million of those cards, those numbers, out of service. They are no longer appropriate cards and they can no longer be used to charge to the system.

There are a number of other steps that we have taken. The member asked for details around identification and resolution of disputes, duplicate registration, analysing and monitoring card utilization. There are 26 initial measures and there are more being taken. In the supplementary perhaps I can give more information.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Point of order? What's out of order?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Mr Speaker, I'm concerned that in the minister's response there has been some information that has not been presented quite as accurately as it should be to the House. There was money in the budget since 1990 --

The Speaker: The accuracy of information perhaps is something that can be determined through questions and responses, but it is not a point of order.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, your attempts to discredit my figures and me personally --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Jim Wilson: I'd say to the minister that her attempt to discredit me and the figures I'm using in no way helps the beleaguered taxpayers of Ontario.

Minister, you continue to insist that verification procedures have been put in place, yet while you insist that those procedures are in place, fraud and OHIP incompetence continue unabated.

Last year, a gentleman from Oakville applied for a card for his daughter and received the card a couple of months later. Two weeks after receiving his daughter's card, the gentleman received a second card for his daughter with a different number from the first card. The gentleman contacted OHIP to inform them of the mistake, and in the gentleman's own words, "OHIP didn't even acknowledge that they had made a mistake and didn't ask for the card back."

Minister, yesterday you're quoted as saying, "For the life of me, I can't understand why a decision would be made to issue the new cards without a verification system in place at that time." You knew the health card system was flawed and lacked verification mechanisms when your government came to office. Why did you proceed to issue health cards when you knew the system was flawed and open to abuse?

Hon Ms Lankin: I'd like to again clarify one point. I think this is important with respect to the previous minister under the previous government, who was responsible for the introduction of these cards.

The point I have made is that there was a decision taken not to do verification of cards upon application. So the initial cards would be sent out and after distribution of the cards, when that process was over, there was a system of verification to be put in place. I think it's important to stress again that in hindsight, I disagree with that decision. I might have made the same decision if I were in that place at that point in time. This is not simply finger-pointing, but it is a problem we're faced with now in terms of a number of cards out there.

The member says I knew about this, so why didn't we just stop the issuing of cards? Talk about a further waste of money. We were in the process of already having millions of cards issued out there, we had a backlog in the offices and we needed last summer to get that backlog cleared and get the cards out there.

Since that time we have put in place procedures -- and they are working their way through the system and they're actually getting results -- of identification and resolution of duplicate registration. We're looking at areas where we can monitor out-of-country services in border vacation locations. We've set up a registration analysis unit. As we have had surplus employees in one area of the ministry, we have reallocated or relocated them to look at analysis of this problem. I think we are moving on this with the best of the technology available and with the resources available.

What we've achieved is that 1.2 million of those cards have been rendered inactive. We always know there will be a difference between the numbers that are out there, with births and deaths, and the numbers of people who are in the population. Quite frankly, we think we still have --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- about 400,000 cards that we need at this point in time to further analyse and to find out whether or not there is fraud, whether or not there are duplicates, whether there are deaths. We are working on that. I think we're doing a very competent job.

Mr Jim Wilson: To the minister again, your statement that you are carrying out verification procedures now is small consolation to Ontario taxpayers, who know that the health card system is being exploited. Recently, I was contacted by a woman who works in a neurology clinic in Toronto who told me that four Iranian citizens who have health cards routinely visit Ontario for health care treatment.

Minister, your so-called procedures in the system are not working. Your ministry has never recalled the 1.2 million cards in circulation that either belong to dead people, are duplicates or are considered fraudulent. I presume you've cancelled these numbers in the government's computer, but the cards are still out there and they can be used by anyone to obtain health care services.

What steps have you taken to recall the 1.2 million cards out there?

Hon Ms Lankin: When the member raises examples that he has been made aware of with respect to citizens of foreign countries who are using the services etc, I take those as very important examples and would be very pleased to work with that member to follow up on those sorts of things. Those are the exact kinds of problems our system is prone to experiencing that we need to ensure we follow up. Where there are those examples or the earlier example he raised, I would be very pleased to work with him on that.

With respect to the cards that are out there, as he has indicated, we've taken the first step, which is to make them inactive within the ministry's system. Whenever there is a billing registered against that card, it allows us, through the verification analysis unit, to follow up on that card, to be able to trace down that individual and to be able to do something about withdrawing that from the system.

The next steps are to develop an interactive system with the doctors. As you know, over the last number of years the Ministry of Health, under the previous government and this government, has worked very hard to move more doctors on to a direct billing system, on to an interactive technology for machine-readable input. As we complete that process, we can bring in place the kind of technological advantages that will allow us to have this kind of verification.

I say again that I don't dismiss the member's concerns. I'm glad he's concerned. So am I. We are taking steps. I think we are being very effective in trying to deal with this issue.

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): My question is to the Minister of Health. I preface my remarks: I suspect all members of the House would want to join me as I commend the Minister of Health for her extraordinary leadership in achieving significant efficiencies in the field of health care.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Now that the member has captured everyone's attention, perhaps he could place a question.

Mr Farnan: Minister, provincial expenditures on laboratory services are approximately $1 billion a year, and they continue to increase. What action are you taking to ensure that this large amount of taxpayers' money is being spent effectively?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): There are a number of initiatives in the area of laboratory services that have been undertaken: first of all, our continued negotiations with the association around the fee

schedule and around how much we pay for various lab tests. We took some actions which I think the association correctly objected to. They sat down, worked with us and found some better alternatives. That's paying off. We are seeing some savings as a result of that.

We've also looked at the need to review the whole area of lab services in terms of looking at issues of utilization, trends, causes, service needs. We know this is often driven by doctors ordering tests and then we end up paying for it. We have to look at the efficacy of the tests and look at whether there were indications that warranted the ordering of those tests.

There's some work we need to do with a lot of stakeholders. We've brought them together in an advisory committee to be part of a review. We've appointed Diana Schatz as chair of this advisory committee. People will know of her qualifications in this area. They were appointed this month and we expect that we will be seeing results from that process over the next number of months.

Mr Farnan: Of the $1 billion I referred to, Minister, the 1991 budget said that $490 million was spent on fees for service to private laboratories. As the amount spent on public laboratories is part of a hospital's global budget, how can we sure that the level of funding for public laboratories is sufficient to provide the same level of service as that provided by private laboratories?

Hon Ms Lankin: This issue has often been presented as one of equity. I know that workers in hospital labs, managers of hospital labs and hospital CEOs have often suggested that the response might be to bill outpatients under the fee-for-service schedule, the same as private labs do. In fact, I remember a time when I was an advocate on behalf of hospital lab workers when I advocated that same thing.

Having come into the position and looked at it a bit more, I understand that within the hospital's global budget there are in fact already funds allocated for the running of labs for both inpatient and outpatient. This doesn't mean, with the kind of restraint we've seen on hospital budgets, that they don't have problems and that there isn't a tendency therefore to move outpatient work out to private labs and use those funds that might have been allocated for that for other services within the hospital.

This is one of the issues that is clearly one of the points of reference of the review. It's not the only one. It is an issue I can't give you the answer to but one we're concerned about and that we've asked the advisory committee and others to advise us on.

LEGAL AID

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, several days ago I referred a constituent with a WCB problem to a legal aid clinic in my riding. The constituent called me and said that the legal aid clinic was no longer accepting WCB files.

I contacted the legal aid clinic and spoke to a staff lawyer who indicated to me that they are absolutely swamped with files and that they've made a decision they are no longer accepting WCB files or immigration files. The staff lawyer indicated to me, Treasurer, and this is an exact quote, "There is a sudden occurrence of a lot of people calling because their WCB supplements are being cut off."

I've also learned, Treasurer, that this is the case across the province, including places such as St Catharines. The workload crisis is so severe, Treasurer, that clinic directors Peter Showler from Ottawa and Jim Arenburg from Sudbury recently issued a statement in which they said the following, "The clear implication is that this government does not value the work of legal clinics and therefore does not value the plight of the poor."

My question, Treasurer, is this: The poor are clearly losing access to justice in Ontario. What are you going to do now to remedy this unacceptable situation?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I believe the member had a legitimate question. I don't know why he felt he had to clutter up the end of it with a lot of nonsense.

This government needs no lecture from the Liberal opposition in this province on its commitment to people who are poor in this province, absolutely none whatsoever. At a time when this province experienced the greatest prosperity since the Second World War, the official opposition, which was then in government, chose not to take actions that could have alleviated a lot of problems.

Having said that, I can assure the member opposite that there is a commitment to the people who have less than most of us in this province. Secondly, to say or to imply that workers' compensation claimants suddenly have a problem is really to stretch credibility to the breaking point, because he knows as well as I know, that certainly in the 20 years I've been in this assembly, the problem of workers' compensation has been a consistent one regardless of who was in office.

Mr Chiarelli: Treasurer, your commitments are worth only the rhetoric that comes from that side of the House. The fact of the matter is that legal clinics across this province are refusing access to justice for poor people because they're underfunded and they have no commitment; in fact, they have no strategy from your Attorney General. The fact of the matter is that WCB injured workers are not given access to legal services in this province. You, Treasurer, are permitting the legal aid clinics to be funded on the backs of injured workers. What are you going to do about it?

Hon Mr Laughren: What the member says is total and absolute nonsense. This Attorney General has a greater commitment to legal aid clinics than any Attorney General in the history of this province. The member opposite should understand that. That's absolutely true. There's been an increase in funding to the legal aid clinics, but I can --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite knows that this Attorney General does have a major commitment to legal aid clinics, and this government has made a major commitment to injured workers in this province. But I can tell the member opposite --

Mr Chiarelli: Two minor projects three years down the road. Big deal.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to deal with the problem of legal aid clinics and the number of injured worker claimants in a rational way. But I can tell the member --

Mr Chiarelli: Document the fact that they won't give them access.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member opposite will stop yapping for one minute, I'll give him an answer.

I can tell the member opposite that this government is not going to follow the policy of the previous government that simply opened the purse-strings on every problem that came along. You would bankrupt this province if you were still in office.

PAROLE OFFICERS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. Mr Minister, at a time when increasing numbers of violent offenders are being placed back into the community --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, order. With the cooperation of the member for Ottawa West and the member for London North, we'll be able to ask a question.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Minister, at a time when increasing numbers of violent offenders are being placed back into the community with occasionally tragic consequences, why then is your ministry secretly lowering the standards needed to be a parole officer?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I'm familiar with the issue and we've received a number of concerns from probation and parole officers. I'm sure the member is aware that there's been an attempt on the part of this government to recognize other life skills and life experiences that would allow people to qualify for certain jobs that otherwise have been closed off to them. On this particular issue, there has been a six-month review period that I have been given to look at the issue, and I'm currently doing that.

Mrs Cunningham: Neither the parole officers' association nor its union was made aware of any of these changes. This is a government that's supposed to consult, and quite frankly, I'm even more disappointed than I expected to be with the minister's response. I thought he'd probably say something like, "The level of expectation is the same," but he didn't, so I'm going to ask this question again.

Mr Minister, for the benefit of our young people entering post-secondary education, and at a time when our educational system is apparently very serious about providing the kinds of candidates we want for these positions -- and if you don't understand that, speak to the Minister of Colleges and Universities -- why would you then, Mr Minister, be lowering the standards instead of keeping them exactly the same -- that's a university degree -- or expecting even more specifics to go with this most important job that not only helps people to get back into society, but helps us to keep our society safe? Why would you do such a thing at this time?

Hon Mr Christopherson: First of all, I would again state to the honourable member that this decision has not yet been taken. I don't know how much clearer I can be. That decision has not been made. I am reviewing the matter. There is a goal in our ministry, as there is in all ministries, to ensure that we have adequate requirements for people who perform very important positions, and these certainly are that.

Mrs Cunningham: Why are you even thinking about it?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Christopherson: The member insists on saying that we're lowering the qualifications in other places in the government where this has happened. It's to look at other experiences that would give equal requirements, not lower the standards. But again, the matter is under review. I am actively looking at it, and when a decision is rendered --

Mrs Cunningham: Give me a break.

The Speaker: The member for London North.

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- the honourable member as well as everyone else will be informed of it.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, many parents and teachers in my riding have been asking me about the status of the work you and your ministry are doing on the integration of children's services. In fact, Minister, last Friday I met with a school principal in Stouffville secondary who was asking me about this. Often, parents and their children must go to several different agencies to access needs and services. This is often time-consuming and very frustrating.

Minister, can you tell me, the House and the viewers exactly what's being done on this interministerial committee, its priorities and time frames? I understand there's a secretariat being set up to link up the ministries and their services. Could you please tell us when this will be in place?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the member for the question. The issue of interministerial cooperation and the integration of children's services is one of the priorities of our ministry in terms of managing the current situation we find ourselves in, both in terms of the disarray of those services and their ability to meet the needs of individual children and families and also, of course, the hard times that all these services are facing in terms of the recession.

The interministerial committee consists of representatives of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and the Ministry of Housing as primary members, and then the criminal justice ministries are also part of that, as is the Ontario women's directorate.

What the group is doing initially is setting out a framework for policy development on integration that will really look at how we look at funding and program development to ensure that integration exists. The chair of the committee is the assistant deputy minister in Education and we are modelling this as an integrated approach.

Mr O'Connor: Minister, you never mentioned the secretariat that's going to link all the ministries and their services together. There's a concern about how the principle, in particular, is going to work, and I'm sure the secretariat might just answer some of those questions.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I'm sure this is why the question arose, because we have sent out announcements to the community that's concerned about the secretariat. It is located in the Ministry of Education. The person who is heading that up is named Suzanne Hamilton. The idea is to coordinate the work of the committee and to bring in proposals that come in from communities and really vet those through the community. So we think it will be an effective way of ensuring that the good policy work that's done actually gets put into action by the various ministries involved.

CHILD ABUSE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm sorry I didn't have an opportunity to respond to that ministerial statement. My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the Prescott area, we have a project called Jericho, which unfortunately continues to discover a massive, multigenerational network of child abuse. Up to this point, we have almost 200 alleged victims.

Madam Minister, Project Jericho is a unique intervention model and was the first child sexual abuse investigation in Canada to have police and social workers working together as a team. It has become a model. The social workers and police officers on Project Jericho have just been told that the team is about to be dissolved and its members are going to be reassigned to new duties. This team investigates allegations. This team counsels children and families, gives advise to parents and foster parents and continues to be subpoenaed to court. The dismantling of this team will indeed decentralize efforts and resources at a critical time. Madam Minister, why are you undermining this success?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): We are certainly continuing to provide the services that families and children need in this circumstance. The action that has been taken, in terms of the regularization of the process, is because it's not an emergency at this point; it's an ongoing process that is going to take a number of years. We need to be funding and supporting that service in the way we do in other communities so that the additional resources that have been attached to this project, for the various areas, will continue to be available but the actual way in which it has been delivered will be put into the normal operation of the CAS.

I understand from the Solicitor General that the office the police have had will be maintained there but that the individual personnel who have formed the initial team naturally are moving on because of career changes.

Mrs O'Neill: Madam Minister, my knowledge is very different than yours. I do not think people are moving on because of natural career changes. I do think they're being asked to change duties and go into routine duties.

This is a situation that is unique to this community. It's multigenerational, as I said. It spreads itself continually. You're telling me that it's like other communities and must have the same services as other communities.

Madam Minister, it has been recently announced that there will be cuts in staffing to this project on December 31, 1992, reducing the level of services to children in their own natural homes who are victims of this profound tragedy. The case loads of the workers assigned to these victims, these victims who are particularly at risk, will rise from 15 to 1 to 30 to 1 on December 31. Why, Madam Minister, are you cutting staff assistance to vulnerable children who have already endured a horrendous nightmare?

Hon Mrs Boyd: As this situation has unfolded, we have learned a great deal about how the needs need to be provided. Although we certainly have been criticized in the press, we are not in our view reducing the level of service that's going to be available overall. We are certainly changing the way in which we are delivering that service, and we are doing that because of what we have learned during the whole course of the situation.

The member is well aware that this is an area in which I am quite experienced. Indeed, one of the agencies in my home town, the London Family Court Clinic, was one of the major initial parts of the project that was set up. I knew about it long before I was part of this place.

It is very important for the member to understand that, in terms of the initial kind of response, we had to get up and running a lot of services that were not originally available in that community. They are going to need to be available over a long period of time and cannot be continued on an ad hoc basis. They need to be provided in a regular way --

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- so that community can be assured that they are going to be available over the long run. That's my concern.

We now have a large number of those children who have become wards of the court.

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: They are our responsibility through another whole situation. As the state as parent obviously has a very strong need --

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): After that statement to the House by both sides there, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, in five days Canadians will be voting on the most significant issue our country has faced since Confederation. At this time of national decision-making, this Legislature is being forced to consider the most important piece of legislation brought before this House by your government: Bill 40, changes to the labour law, a piece of legislation which undoubtedly is pivotal to the economic health and future wellbeing of Ontario.

Impact studies show 295,000 jobs lost and $8.5 billion in forgone investment.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Turnbull: This will prolong the recession. Is the minister so ashamed of the bill that he's trying to sneak it through the House --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member please take his seat. When order has been restored to the chamber, I will allow the member to briefly place a question.

Mr Turnbull: Okay, my question to the minister is, is he so ashamed of this bill that he's trying to sneak it through when the media's attention is distracted? How can he justify pushing such major legislation through when the attention of the public is gone?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Labour.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to assure the honourable member for York Mills that I'm not trying to sneak the bill through. I don't know a bill that has been more in the public spotlight than my bill.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to register my dissatisfaction with that answer and I'm calling for a late show on that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Occasionally, members are dissatisfied with responses. I trust that the member will file --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Maybe we should turn the heat off. Even a modicum of restraint on both sides of the House would be helpful. I trust that the member for York Mills will file the necessary document at the table.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from Emmanuel Baptist Church, 607 Vine Street in St Catharines. It reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of a legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families. The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of a 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I agree with the sentiments of this petition and present it on behalf of those who have brought it to my attention.

GAMBLING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas it is against United Church of Canada policy to indulge in any type of gambling

" -- Gambling casinos bring crime to a community

" -- Not everyone has the self-control to limit their betting

" -- Low-income people will suffer from unwise use of their resources

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

"Be it resolved that the Toronto Conference of United Church Women do strongly object to the Ontario government's proposed legislation to promote offtrack betting, sports lotteries and gambling casinos."

I've also affixed my signature.

FRUIT GROWERS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am presenting a petition signed by 24 members of the Carleton United Church of the Niagara Presbytery. This petition deals with the tender fruit growers in Niagara and it states:

"Whereas the Ontario tender fruit growers are in financial crisis,

"Therefore, we, the members of the Niagara Presbytery of the United Church of Canada, petition the Ontario government to act immediately to find a solution to economic viability of tender fruit farms.

"Whereas the Ontario tender fruit growers are in financial crisis; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is undertaking an agricultural land protection program,

"Therefore, we, the members of Carleton United Church, strongly oppose restrictions on tender fruit land until economic viability of the tender fruit growers is restored."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

This is signed by 33 citizens of Middlesex county and I have affixed my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my signature as well.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr Speaker, I'm bringing 350 names here today to add to the hundreds of names that have been brought before.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government 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 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've signed this, Mr Speaker, and it's my pleasure to present it to this House.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of people in St Catharines concerning Sunday shopping. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing Sunday shopping in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government uphold the common pause day. We are opposed to Sunday shopping and we want one day a week for all, free from shopping and work."

I agree with this petition and present it on behalf of those who brought it to my attention.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I again today have 310 names on a petition that says:

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has seen fit to ignore the council of the township of Tiny and their plea for reconsideration of boundary line changes within the municipality; and

"Whereas the minister has stated that restructuring within the county of Simcoe will be implemented,

"Now, therefore, the taxpayers of the township of Tiny find it necessary to band together and lobby against the implementation of the restructuring of the county of Simcoe.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing the County of Simcoe Act until the provincial government deals with the township of Tiny in a fair and equitable manner."

As I said, it has 310 names and I have affixed my name to it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 29 citizens of the county of Middlesex in regard to the greater London area arbitration. These citizens respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario to set aside the arbitrator's report because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings, it awards far too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London and it will jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have two petitions here, one from the Haileybury Pastoral Charge of the United Church of Canada and the other from the Haileybury and District Baptist Church, and it's in regard to Sunday shopping. I'll just read one of them:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition to wide-open Sunday business."

It reads:

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment on the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of a 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

GAMBLING

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am presenting a petition signed by 85 members of the Virgil Mennonite Brethren Church who are in opposition to the proposal to license a permanent gambling establishment in the Niagara Peninsula. The petition states:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. I believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where a family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and in the Niagara region in particular. I believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity. By my signature here attached, I ask you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

I have affixed my signature.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'd like to indicate my support for the petition presented by the member for St Catharines-Brock.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): You definitely have a point of interest.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have, it looks to me, close to 4,000 petitions from people in York, Durham and Peel, and I have affixed my name to these petitions, to the one on top.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 57 proposed sites in the regions of York, Durham and Peel as possible candidates for landfill;

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act,

section 5(3); and

"Whereas willing host communities such as Kirkland Lake will not be allowed to have a proper hearing to consider the Adams mine site as a possible solution to the greater Toronto area garbage,

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of disposal sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a willing host community exists which is interested in developing new disposal systems for the greater Toronto area waste."

I submit this in the hope that the government will do something with it other than just file it.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

It's signed by a number of citizens and I've affixed my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT, 1992

On motion by Mrs Sullivan, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr3,

An Act respecting the City of Burlington.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONDON-MIDDLESEX ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LONDON ET MIDDLESEX

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 75,

An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex / Loi concernant les annexations faites à la cité de London et à certaines municipalités du comté de Middlesex.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): This is a deferred vote on Bill 75. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1505 to 1510.

The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

Mr Cooke moves second reading of Bill 75. Those in favour of the motion will please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget;

Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Wark-Martyn, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Cooke's motion will please rise one by one.

Nays

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Conway, Cousens, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Mancini, Mathyssen, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): I now have to ask Mrs Cunningham, Mrs Marland and Mr Harnick.

[Applause]

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Never mind the applause. Vote with her.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the member for St Catharines to please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the member for St Catharines to please come to order.

All members know that once in the chamber it is necessary to cast a vote. I ask the members for, first, London North, which way she wishes to vote: for or against?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'll be voting in favour.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: Mrs Cunningham.

The Speaker: And the member for Mississauga South?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In favour.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: Mrs Marland.

The Speaker: And the member for Willowdale?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): In favour.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: Mr Harnick.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57, the nays 30.

The Speaker: The ayes being 57 and the nays 30, I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): No, the finance committee.

The Speaker: Finance committee? So ordered. Orders of the day.

Hon Mr Cooke: The fifth order.

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The fifth order. Committee of the whole House.

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: If this is to call for committee of the whole House, Bill 40, I wish to raise with you a point of order which in my view would prevent us from dealing with Bill 40 in committee of the whole House. Under

section 77(c) --

The Speaker: If I could be of assistance to the member, first of all, I am at this very moment not able to know what it is that we're being called to do.

Mr Elston: Since it's the only item on our list, it's pretty easy to assume that that's what we're going to deal with.

The Speaker: I wonder if it would be possible to get some direction from the government House leader as to the purpose for calling committee of the whole.

Hon Mr Cooke: It was our intention to call Bill 40.

The Speaker: I would be pleased, in that instance, to hear from the House leader for the opposition.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, since it is the intention of the government party to call Bill 40 in committee of the whole House, I wish to bring to your attention and to the attention of other people that under standing order 77(c), it specifically says with respect to the conduct of public business, "When a bill that is reported from a standing or a select committee is referred to the committee of the whole House, it shall not be taken up earlier than the second calendar day after the referral."

Mr Speaker, I have for you a copy of this particular set of the standing orders for your edification and so you don't have to refer to it straight away in your office. I also give to you a copy of the resolution that was passed under Mr Cooke's name on behalf of the government which talks about the conduct of the government business with respect to Bill 40.

When you read through it, you will note that it specifically indicates time lines and time frames for conducting each stage of business, starting with what would be described as the last day of second reading debate and carrying on through until the passage of the bill. It clearly says that we are to consider Bill 40 in committee of the whole House for two sessional days, but it does not preclude the use of standing order 77(

c) as to determining when committee of the whole House may start.

My point to you, Mr Speaker, is that while a time allocation motion like this, which is now the regular order of government business, supersedes the regular operation of standing orders, it is not going to supersede a standing order which in fact is not talked about in the text of the time allocation motion.

I therefore indicate to you that while the time allocation motion says that two days shall be held for committee of the whole House, it does not tell us that 77(

c) of the standing orders is to be abrogated in the consideration of it. I request that you review this and find that the motion to move to committee of the whole House to consider Bill 40 is in fact out of order and that we not now deal with that because it would be a violation of standing order 77(c).

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce -- first of all, I must ask if there is any other member who wishes to contribute to this particular point of order and be of assistance.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It is a rather important point when you consider that the standing orders have been developed by all members of the House and hopefully in the best interests of the House.

Section 1 of the standing orders indicates:

"1(

a) The proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in all committees of the assembly shall be conducted according to the following standing orders."

Therefore, as you understand the importance of 77(c), it would indicate the necessity of having some time for such bills to be given a period of time in which they are held in abeyance before they come into the House, to give all members an opportunity to be prepared and ready and on deck in order to respond to it.

There's a scheduling matter that gets involved with a number of people. To expect them to be able to respond without any kind of cooperation coming from the government makes it extremely difficult. When there is an opportunity to know what is coming and when, through the due process of giving notice, those members who want to participate in those debates will be able to

schedule their agendas accordingly.

When the government, on its own initiative and without prior consultation, goes ahead and changes activities that are going to be scheduled in the House, as we have today, it takes away from the whole purpose of the standing orders and the trust that everybody has built within them.

I have to say, Mr Speaker, though you're caught on short notice of this, as it's been tabled and it's come, I can understand the frustration you have when you're in the chair and you don't have proper notice of it and have to respond very quickly. How much more that is true for members of the Legislature, when we, who are trying to

schedule our time on a regular consistent basis to speed and accelerate the activities of the House, find this kind of surprise coming from the government House leader.

Therefore, when you are considering this, I have to echo much of the intent that has been tabled by the honourable House leader of the Liberal Party. I have to say on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party that we read

section 77(

c) as having a necessity for more than the time allowed before such an activity can be scheduled in this House.

I hope, having drawn your attention to it and having referred to some of the precedents that have been part of this House, that we will not see this as a time for the Chair to break new precedent. In defence of the government House leader, I would have to say that we have not begun to look at such items as the Sunday shopping legislation, we have not had full and complete debate of the budget; there are numerous other bills like that which the people of Ontario are waiting for this House to deal with. If the government House leader were able to establish a time

schedule and deal with the agenda of the government in a way that all members of this House would understand it, it would increase the sense of cooperation that could be established in this House.

Every time the government House leader begins to think he can make rules or doesn't know the rules or doesn't follow the rules, I think he further undermines a sense of orderly conduct of business in this Legislature.

In presenting this as a concern, I sincerely hope the Speaker of the House will take the time to properly consider it, and that the government will do the appropriate thing and find other matters to deal with than what it has suggested today. I table these concerns with great concern and the fear that this is just another example of the incompetence of the government House leader and his failure to really work with the House.

The Speaker: Does the government House leader wish to contribute to the point of order?

Hon Mr Cooke: Not really, Mr Speaker, other than to say that the point of order that has been raised is one we anticipated might be raised, and we understand that the point is correct. All I would ask is whether we could have just a 10-minute recess while the three House leaders get together to look at what we'll deal with for the next couple of hours.

The Speaker: In fact, I listened very closely to the member for Bruce, and indeed I do believe he is correct. Having been taken by this matter very quickly, I was going to ask for a couple of minutes so I could confer with the table and try to determine whether my instinct on this is accurate. Indeed, I hear a request from the government House leader for 10 minutes for the three House leaders to meet, and that perhaps would serve all of us well. It would give me an opportunity to review this. As I say, I do believe the House leader for the opposition is correct, but of course I want to be absolutely sure before making a final determination.

Mr Elston: Briefly, Mr Speaker, I think what you probably also heard from the government House leader was that he agreed with myself and the member for Markham that in fact it cannot be called, so I think that really puts an end to the issue. But what we really need is some time now, if we're in agreement, to search out what business might be available for us. That's all.

The Speaker: I do appreciate any member believing that a particular point of order is in order. The Speaker has an independent role to fulfil. This house stands in recess for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 1525 and resumed at 1535.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, indeed he is right. I must refer members to standing order 77(c), "When a bill that is reported from a standing or select committee is referred to the committee of the whole House, it shall not be taken up earlier than the second calendar day after the referral." The referral was yesterday. This is day one. Day two would be tomorrow. Thus, it cannot be raised earlier than day two. The exception to that is two possibilities:

(1) In the special resolution of the House which was passed earlier, it would have been contained in that special referral. Had that been done, that would have superseded the standing order.

(2) As always, unanimous consent can override any particular standing order.

Thus, it is not possible, unless by unanimous consent, to call forward Bill 40. The earliest it can be dealt with would be tomorrow.

GAMING SERVICES ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES SERVICES RELATIFS AU JEU

Ms Churley moved second reading of Bill 26,

An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services / Loi prévoyant la réglementation des services relatifs au jeu.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes, Mr Speaker, I do.

On May 27 I introduced for first reading the new Gaming Services Act. It is now my pleasure to move second reading for the bill.

As I informed members of the House back in May, the number of organizations participating in charitable gaming and the frequency of events has increased dramatically in recent years. A commercial sector providing bingo halls, callers, dealers and other services has grown to the point where Ontario has the largest commercial gaming sector in North America.

Until now, these operations and their employees have been unregulated. This unregulated sector means that worthwhile charities are increasingly losing control over the conduct and management of their gaming events. Despite the growth in charitable gaming, many charities are seeing a substantial decline in their proceeds.

A moratorium was placed on the licensing of bingos in new commercial facilities in 1989. This measure was taken to stabilize charitable profits and attendance levels, which were being affected by increased competition between charitable groups and saturated gaming markets.

In the spring of 1990, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations produced a discussion document of charitable gaming. This document was widely circulated to solicit a range of opinions on future directions. All sectors of the charitable gaming community responded. The comments received have been, where possible, incorporated into this new legislation.

The new Gaming Services Act will provide a framework to regulate the public gaming sector. This will give charitable and religious organizations greater control over the conduct and management of gaming events. It will also ensure honesty and integrity in Ontario's gaming marketplace.

The framework we are proposing will be used as the basis for talks between the government and the first nations related to control, regulation and administration of gaming activities on reserves.

We support the right of first nations to self-government within the country's constitutional framework. We also recognize the need of first nations' people to have the right and the opportunity to raise funds through gaming to support development of facilities and services to benefit native communities. At the same time, we also recognize that there is a viable, charitable gaming marketplace that must be considered in the course of negotiations with the first nations. Consideration of the local, non-native gaming sector will be a factor to be addressed and considered during the talks.

There is only one gaming marketplace in Ontario. Gaming activities must operate in a way that is fair to all participants. A level playing field is vital to a healthy gaming market.

We will be negotiating to reach an agreement through which Ontario removes itself from the regulation of gaming on reserves. Each first nation with which an agreement is signed will assume responsibility for regulation, control and administration of all gaming activities on its reserve. The negotiated agreements will outline the responsibilities of the first nations in establishing processes and procedures for regulating and controlling gaming, as well as other responsibilities in terms of assisting the first nations where desired.

Prior to the first reading of this bill, I signed, on behalf of the government, an agreement to negotiate with a first nation in northwestern Ontario, the Rat Portage band. I'm pleased to say that talks with the band are under way now.

Besides the Gaming Services Act, three other initiatives are being taken to change the regulatory framework governing charitable gaming here in Ontario. First of all, a new order in council is being developed to clarify roles with respect to licensing. As a result, local governments will emerge with even greater authority to issue licences. I believe it is in the best interests of the community for charitable gaming licences to be issued at the local level. Giving municipalities more authority makes sense when you consider that they issue 90% of the charitable gaming licences throughout Ontario now.

The third initiative is the design of a new lottery licensing policy manual. This guide will help municipal lottery licensing officers administer the charitable gaming program in a consistent manner province-wide.

I would like to emphasize once again that the new Gaming Services Act is not related at all to the issue of casino gambling. Plans for a regulatory framework for the charitable gaming marketplace have been under development for a very, very long time.

I urge members of this House to support second reading so that necessary controls on the industry can be implemented as soon as possible. These controls will help charitable, religious and native communities achieve their very worthwhile goals.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. Questions and/or comments.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's always interesting to see the delivery of a second reading debate. But I must say that with regard to this debate on the Gaming Services Act, I was kind of expecting a little bit more detail on the actual content of the bill from the member.

I know she spent a lot of time on the negotiations which are about to take place or which will have to take place as a result of the new regime put in place by this act, but as we have all seen, the degree of security of the citizens of the province of Ontario is somewhat destabilized when they think that the legislation to be dealt with only means more talks and really doesn't settle any of the questions which are going to amount to very big issues in the locales, some of which were mentioned by the minister.

I would like to hear from the minister, when she replies to my brief intervention here, just how long she expects all of these negotiations to take and exactly what the ramifications are going to be for the interesting new steps to be taken under what I hope will be the constitutional amendments to be voted on on October 26, because it seems to me the regime of negotiations with native peoples in Canada will change after October 26 if we have a positive vote on referendum day.

I am interested in that because it seems to me that, while there has been very serious negotiation with our native population over several years, in fact a lot of it was initiated, if I might say so, by the former Attorney General, Ian Scott, who has just recently stood down from this place, as you recall. It seems like a new day will come about in terms of negotiations, almost a new sense of how negotiations should be carried on will fall from the positive acceptance of the October 26 question, and I want to hear the minister speak more clearly about that.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I must say it is a rather strange time to proceed with the second reading of this bill with the uncertainty, as the member for Bruce has indicated, concerning the negotiations of our aboriginal peoples, particularly when we are now less than a week away from a referendum and this subject could have an effect, if anything, on the proceeding of the referendum.

Most of the people in this House are taking the affirmative position in supporting the Charlottetown accord, but you now, through your own admission and your statements and your press releases, are talking about how you will be starting to negotiate to reach agreements throughout our various aboriginal peoples, because this bill will certainly not apply to reserves. In other words, we're going to have one set of laws in this province for gaming services within the reserves and one set outside the reserves. That may or may not be a good thing.

I think the difficulty is that probably you're premature in proceeding with this bill at this time when you haven't determined those issues. You haven't determined what your agreements are going to be. You haven't determined what self-government is going to be. You haven't determined what the effect of not having the Gaming Services Act within the aboriginal reserves is going to be.

So I find it rather strange that you're proceeding at this particular time with the bill, particularly with some of the uncertainty that has been arising concerning the negotiations with our aboriginal people, particularly for the first nations. I, too, hope that the minister will comment specifically on the fact that the regulations of the Gaming Services Act will not apply to Indian reserves. I think it's a most important issue that should be dealt with now, before this bill proceeds further.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): As we begin this debate on Bill 26,

An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services, I think one question that the minister should be prepared to answer at the outset is whether or not this act will require amendment as a result of the Charlottetown accord, what would happen to this act if that accord is ratified by all of the provinces and the federal government and what, if anything, would happen to this legislation, as far as required amendment, should that accord not be ratified.

The other question I ask the minister, in conjunction with this, is: Does she anticipate, at this point in time, substantive amendment to any part of the legislation as a result of any of the comments that she has heard in the initial response to the tabling of this legislation for first reading? Some time has passed since the government first announced that it was going to be moving forward with the establishment of casinos.

I know that this act empowers the government, as it said, to establish one in the vicinity of Windsor. But I would like to know, because a number of people have asked me: Would this act require amendment prior to the establishment of additional casinos in other parts of the province or does this act empower the government to move forward unilaterally or by regulation to establish more than just the one which the minister has announced?

There are a number of questions which I think should be clarified through the course of this debate and discussion. My constituents in the riding of Oriole are mixed in their views as to what the impact would be and they'd like to see some impact studies and analysis as a result of the work of the minister. I look forward to that debate.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one further participant in questions and/or comments. Seeing none, would the honourable Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations proceed with a two-minute response.

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, in terms of the negotiations with natives -- I should have clarified this in my statement -- the courts have already determined that any native gaming comes under the jurisdictions of provinces. Beyond that, our government, as you know, signed the Statement of Political Relationship last year and we had decided at that time that we would also work with the first nations people on this issue before the Charlottetown deal was made.

So we do have the jurisdiction already as a result of the historic document we signed, the Statement of Political Relationship, last year, so that is not a problem. We can proceed as when we first came out with this bill. We do know that if the accord passes it may have universal impact on us, but that's hard to say. But we feel confident that we can go ahead with this because we already have the jurisdiction to do so.

Another question that was asked was: Is this connected in any way with casinos? It is not in any way connected with casinos. It is to deal precisely with regulating the commercial charitable gaming sector. What is happening right now is that it's totally unregulated. Most of the charities out there are very pleased to see this because there is skimming of profits. There are real problems out there and the sector, since it's growing so huge, really has to be regulated.

It will not, as far as we understand, require any amendments. I know that there were some questions asked from both sides of the House, but the kinds of questions that were asked are separate from this actual document, this actual bill, and we'd be going ahead anyway with the orders in council. I can address that a little later.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 26,

An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services. The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: The gaming services bill --

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, on a point of order.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the honourable member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: I was distracted for a moment, but I meant to stand in my place and indicate that since we have had to create certain combinations for the carrying on of business today, we are allowing the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel to start with his opening remarks. The fact that we have not joined the debate is only an indication that our critic is not here and that we wish to reserve the full, opening leadoff speech for our critic when he is able to be with us. I think that arrangement is agreeable unanimously with all of the members here in the House, but I wanted that to be brought to the fore at this moment.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the request from the member for Bruce. Agreed? Agreed. We have unanimous consent. The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel can proceed.

Mr Tilson: I rise as the critic for the Progressive Conservative Party to speak on Bill 26,

An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services. This bill received first reading on May 27 of this year and I think we should add to some of the comments that were made by the minister with respect to what this bill is doing, because it has created a certain amount of confusion and concern among the charities and also the bingo parlour operators in this province.

I think the minister is going to have to spend a considerable amount of time on perhaps making amendments to her bill or persuading us, at least on this side, that the way she is treating those people isn't the dastardly way that it appears to be coming forward. The concern is widespread and has increased, if anything, over the summer since this bill was first introduced.

As you may or may not know, the Criminal Code of Canada permits provinces to license specified lottery schemes. Under a licence, charitable or religious organizations may operate such activities as bingos, Monte Carlo nights and those types of activities. The licence-issuing authority may be a municipality or the entertainment standards branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

As the number of charitable organizations in our own community relying on these types of activities, bingo and other related events, has increased over the past several years, so has the size of the commercial sector that has gotten into this field to facilitate these events. In other words, there has been a form of partnership with respect to bingo parlours and charitable organizations in running these events. So, to date, this sector has been largely unregulated.

This bill, as has been indicated by the minister, provides a regulatory framework for the commercial sector. The operators and their employees will now require provincial scrutiny and registration to provide support services under Bill 26. Charitable and religious organizations, however, will still require a licence to hold a gaming permit.

The provisions of this bill, if I could briefly summarize it so that we will know where we're headed in this debate, consist of nine points, which I would like to refer to briefly for purposes of proceeding this afternoon.

First of all, a director and a registrar of gaming services are appointed under this bill.

Second, persons who provide premises, materials, equipment or the services of a gaming assistant must be registered as suppliers.

Third, bingo callers, wheel operators and others paid for participating in a game of chance must be registered as gaming assistants.

Fourth, registration as a supplier or gaming assistant may be refused, revoked or suspended by the registrar, subject to appeal by the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal.

Fifth, power is given to investigate contraventions of the act, including the right to apply for a search warrant. That's a topic that seems to be creeping up more and more in the legislation that is coming forward by this government: the expanding power of the search warrant.

Sixth, the director may, for the preservation of the public, freeze the assets of a supplier or other person to ensure their safekeeping. Appeal procedures are provided.

Seventh, specific rules of conduct are provided for suppliers and gaming assistants, including recordkeeping and accounting requirements. The director may make an order requiring compliance with the act. Appeal procedures are provided.

Finally, there's a provision in the bill which deals with contraventions of the act being punishable by fine or imprisonment.

The minister has made some preliminary comments, in her opening remarks to this House, dealing with the fact that she states that this bill does not concern the operation of bingo parlours in this province. There's no question that this bill is intended, generally speaking, to deal with the commercial gaming sector. It appears, from what the minister has said both in this House and outside this House, that it's not going to deal with the establishment of government-operated casinos in the province of Ontario.

However, what she isn't saying, which I would submit to her -- and she knows this -- is that it may be possible to interpret the legislation in such a way that would allow for the creation of casinos operated by charitable organizations. For that fact alone -- because that's what this bill is all about; the regulation of charitable organizations, religious organizations, that are operating games of chance, those types of things -- it seems to me that we must be very careful about this minister. We must be very careful in monitoring what she is doing.

She has stood in her place in this House and talked of how she is going to have a gambling casino somewhere in the city of Windsor or somewhere in the Windsor area; she isn't too sure. She's also made it quite clear in her press conference that she doesn't know the type of gambling casino that she's going to operate. Is it going to be operated by the government? Is it going to be operated by a private enterprise corporation? Is it going to be operated by a partnership of both, or is it going to be operated by a charitable organization?

That is indeed a great possibility, that this is exactly what her intent is going to be, in partnership with this government. I don't believe that she will assign the whole project to a charitable organization, to run the Windsor experiment, the Windsor test plan. I believe that she will do it as part of her NDP government, that they will be a partner in this experiment and that the gambling casinos will become a reality in the province of Ontario through this bill, because there's been no indication from this minister or anyone on that side of the House that the Windsor experiment isn't going to occur through a bill.

I made a statement in this House last week on this subject, and it still stands, which expresses my concern that in fact Bill 26 is the tool that is going to be used for the implementation of gambling casinos in the province of Ontario, and specifically with this Windsor experiment.

Mr Speaker, I think we should spent some time on gambling casinos, and I will tell you that I intend to spend some time on that and the effects of gambling casinos, because this minister doesn't want to talk about it. She doesn't want to talk about how she's going to do it. She doesn't want to talk about the cost to the municipality. She doesn't want to talk about the addiction problems of gambling and what she's going to do about that.

She doesn't want to talk about how her party has been opposed to this type of thing over the years and how she personally has been opposed to this type of venture over the years, particularly in her position as a municipal councillor. So I think this is a time when we should spend a few moments reflecting on where I believe this minister is going, and that she knows exactly where she's going on gambling casinos and it's through the Gaming Services Act.

This piece of legislation, Bill 26, follows on a discussion paper which was first put forward by the Liberal government in February 1990, and much of what is proposed was contained in that document. It will be interesting to hear the Liberal critic's comments as to how this bill has varied from the original Liberal initiative, because it is an area that needs to be regulated.

I think the problems that have occurred specifically with the charities, and the concerns of the charities and of many of the people in the province of Ontario that this is possibly an underhanded way or a back-door way of bringing gambling -- well, she's shaking her head but I can tell you clearly, if you haven't read your bill: Your own regulations that you will be able to put forward under this bill will enable you to put forward gambling casinos that will be operated by charitable organizations. That's exactly what your bill is going to be doing; it's going to be regulating the operation of gambling casinos.

This bill will enable gambling casinos to be introduced in this province in all aspects except slot machines. Slot machines won't be under this bill, you couldn't put forward slot machines, but all other aspects of casino gambling you could put forward. The slot machine is the one exception.

She's been very vague on what she intends to do. I would hope we would have some hearings on this subject so that we can hear more about specifically what she proposes to do. Either that or perhaps she will be putting a bill forward on gambling casinos so that we can debate this matter in a proper manner in this House and listen to the people around this province for and against as to the appropriateness of gambling casinos at this time.

That has not been provided to the people of this province. It's simply been announced that we're going to have a gambling casino in the city of Windsor, without any impact studies being revealed as to how it's going to affect jobs, the economy, crime and other matters that are involved in this, other concerns that we have in this province.

As I indicated, the native issue is a subject that concerns us on this side, that you're going to have one area where there can be gaming services, or the subject of gaming, which would be within the reserves, being unregulated by the province of Ontario. She's actually negotiating that.

In other words, the subject of self-government is coming forward. We don't know what that means. Here I'm finding myself talking about the Charlottetown accord, which puts us all in a very difficult position at this specific time, but since she has raised it, I think she's going to have to spend some time on that.

The fact of the matter is that she's admitted today and in her press releases that she's in the process of negotiating agreements as to what is going to be and what is not going to be as far as gaming services on reserves are concerned. Either they're controlled and regulated by the province of Ontario or they're not, and if they're not regulated by the province of Ontario, if that is outside -- as you have indicated you have agreed to -- if that whole subject is outside the laws of Ontario, then we've got some problems.

We've got some problems that in one particular area of my province we'll have one set of rules and in another area we'll have another set of rules, for two different situations -- hardly a fair procedure concerning what you're trying to regulate.

I believe there's no question that the reservations will do everything they can to proceed with their own gambling casinos. Why shouldn't they? It's a profitable venture. Again, we need more input perhaps from the minister and from the Minister of Natural Resources, who has jurisdiction in this area.

The whole subject of downloading is a subject I hope the minister will spend some time on in her reply. Again, much of this will be dealt with by the municipalities. There will be regulations that will put more duties on to the municipalities to regulate gaming services, again, more of an expense.

As I say, it is a continuation of a Liberal policy, all of which we on the Progressive Conservative side and you on the NDP side stood up during the election campaign two years ago, talked about how downloading was affecting the property taxpayer of this province. But in almost every bill that comes forward to this House, there's some rippling-down effect to the municipalities, and the municipalities are only going to get the revenue from one source. That's from the property taxpayer. The grants aren't forthcoming. We have 1%, 2% and 2%. We have a 1% transfer. So where are they going to get the money?

It's just an added expense, another administrator, another bureaucracy that's being created with no adequate financial assistance from the province of Ontario.

The whole subject of downloading needs to be discussed and, I believe, the topic of increasing t