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

November 14, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Nov-14 vol. A (PDF)

L101A - Tue 14 Nov 2000 / Mar 14 nov 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

REMEMBRANCE DAY

OPP FACILITY

LONDON POLICE SERVICE

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

TIME ALLOCATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING

MEMBERS' COMPENSATION

LABOUR LEGISLATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

PAROLE SYSTEM

HAZARDOUS WASTE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

ELDER ABUSE

PROPERTY TAXATION

ADVERTISING

PETITIONS

PENSION INDEXATION

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

LONG-TERM CARE

PARENTAL LEAVE

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I want to report to the House today a problem that continues to plague this government: the improper management of our jails.

A serious situation was brought to the attention of the Minister of Correctional Services regarding intermittent sentencing and overcrowding in our jails across the province. It was very clear that convicted drunk drivers, drug traffickers and those involved in fraud who were given intermittent sentences were not doing their time behind bars due to overcrowding, as Dalton McGuinty told you less than a few weeks ago. Those convicted were literally given get-out-of-jail-free cards and were being told to serve the remainder of their sentences at home. This does not sound like getting tough on crime to me.

How does the minister solve the problem? Well, from his cell phone in Florida, the minister cancelled the temporary absence program entirely. That means more overcrowding in an already dangerous situation. To date, the government's cutbacks have resulted in the closure of 400 beds at correctional facilities across Ontario. Your solution also means that organizations such as the Salvation Army, the John Howard Society and others can no longer provide valuable rehabilitation and community services in a controlled, supervised setting.

Why is it that it has to be all or nothing? It seems to me that the prison system in Ontario isn't the problem. As I've said all along, the correctional officers, the framework and foundation of our system are excellent. It's the Minister of Correctional Services who just isn't up to the job.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): On Saturday, I, along with all of my colleagues in this House, joined hundreds of others at our local cenotaphs. We stood with our heads bowed in silence to pay tribute to the brave men and women of previous generations who picked up arms, went to war and fought to preserve their democratic rights.

Attending annual Remembrance Day services is a humbling experience for me. It is an emphatic reminder of the life and blood sacrifices made by millions of Canadians in the bloodiest wars in history. How small our sacrifices seem in comparison.

Today I stand with you in the Legislature, one of the truly great centrepieces of democracy. Every minute we spend in the Ontario Legislature, every word we speak in this democratic place, is a direct tribute to and the legacy of the men and women who fought to give us this priceless gift: the gift of free speech and the right to vote in democratic elections.

How frightening were those dark days of war for the men and women at the front and their families back home. The fighting men and women had to face the reality that at any second a bullet, artillery shell or bomb blast could end their lives or shatter their bodies, as it had for so many of their friends and comrades. Their families back home lived each day in the fear that they would receive a telegram informing them that a son or daughter, brother or sister had been killed, maimed or was missing in action.

Thanks to their sacrifices, this nation is a truly great nation. Canada is a beacon of light to the free world on what a true democracy can accomplish. Mr Speaker, I thank you for the fine effort you put forward in an attempt to ensure the smooth functioning of this democratic centre. I salute our opposition members, without whom a true democracy could never exist. I pay tribute to the men and women of our caucus who work so hard to provide leadership on many issues. But mostly I stand to pay tribute to the men and women who fought to ensure that their legacy to us and to generations following was the precious gift of democracy.

OPP FACILITY

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): The Ontario Provincial Police and several other ministries are looking to centralize their dispatch services in eastern Ontario. Coincidentally in my riding, Quinte West, there is an empty, virtually brand new Ontario Provincial Police building. Both the OPP and Bell Mobility have recommended that it is the ideal site for this dispatch service, so I was surprised to see an ad by the Ontario Realty Corp requesting proposals for a facility for a dispatch centre in Perth.

The only differences I can find between the location in Belleville and the location in Perth is that Perth doesn't even have a building at this stage and Perth is represented by a Conservative cabinet minister.

This is not Progressive Conservative money that they're spending to do these ads and to construct a new building. This is hard-working taxpayers' money that is being abused. If the Quinte detachment is indeed the best location, why are they looking at Perth? This stinks like pork-barrelling.

I would like this government to come clean and guarantee that the location they select will be the best location, not the best political location but the best location. I know that you will never buy something as cheaply as that which you already own, and this government owns a brand new, empty building. The Solicitor General and the Chair of Management Board need to assure this House and the public of all of Ontario that their money will be spent wisely and that they will select the best building, not the best political solution.

LONDON POLICE SERVICE

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): Police officers risk their lives each and every day when they go to work. They are dedicated to the safety and protection of citizens in Ontario. The reason I rise today is that on Thursday, November 9, 2000, I had the opportunity to recognize some of the long-standing members of the London Police Service. I just want to go through some of the names.

With 30 years of service: Ken Abell, Brian Collins, Kenneth Dixon, Herbert Frew, Frederick Goebel, Richard Hopkins, Al Keutsch, Dennis Koehler, Robin Lawrence, David Lucio, Gerald Marshall, William Mate, Tony Morton, Bruce Nelson, Richard Niles, Wayne Parry, Earl Steele, Robert Tucker, Richard Wilkinson, Brian Young and Leonard Zima;

With 20 years of service: Brian Allen, Brent Anderson, Scott Hessel, Michael Hurni, Randal Bornais, Peter Bradshaw, Gary Brown, Robert Cann, Dennis Carter, John Carter, Bradley Duncan, Ronald Earnshaw, Stuart Ewing, Grant Farquhar, Thomas Gaffney, Robert Gall, Rolf Gassewitz, Terence Griffin, Gary Hansen, Ricky Harriss, Ian Johnson, Paul Kerkhof, Bradley Laird, Dean Lees, Gregory Mayea, Michael McMahon, Bruce Miller, John Patrick, Brent Shea, Jay Simons, David Sparks, Daniel Tangredi, Randall Trineer, Ronald Wickens, Derek Wood and Peter Zinchuk.

Without their contributions our society would not be safe.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Later this week I will be debating my private member's bill,

an act to protect Ontario children who ride school buses, for second reading. Exactly four years ago, this same bill received the unanimous support of the Ontario Legislature and was referred to committee, but the Mike Harris government refused to allow it to proceed.

Seventeen-year-old Ryan Marcuzzi was killed in a senseless school bus accident. Her mother, Colleen, said Harris did the political thing, not the right thing. It has been more than four years since I first introduced my bill-four years of lobbying. I have gained support from local, provincial and national organizations for it: the Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario School Bus Association, the Canada Safety Council, the School Bus Operators' Association of Ontario and the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, to name a few.

It has been four years of waiting for the Harris government to introduce a meaningful deterrent to protect our children from reckless drivers who pass school buses illegally. I have delivered over 30,000 petitions to this government supporting my bill. I am proud that the Marcuzzi and Loxton families support Bill 24. They have lived a nightmare of losing a child because an irresponsible driver refused to obey the law.

School bus drivers and operators understand the need for vehicle liability. They know this government has its priorities all wrong. This government must tell parents and school bus drivers why it refuses to give teeth to the law that would apprehend lawbreakers who threaten the lives of our children.

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I rise to speak out on behalf of the children in elementary school in the city of Hamilton, where 40,000 students are not in the classroom as a result of a lockout by the school board of 2,300 elementary teachers, federation of Ontario members. I want to say to this House and to this government that the strike is tearing apart our community, which I believe is exactly what you wanted.

The teachers are entitled to a fair collective agreement. The trustees have a responsibility to ensure that the classrooms and the programs being provided meet the needs of our children.

Here's what the chair of the committee that is doing the negotiating said, and it's addressed to Janet Ecker:

"I am sure you are aware of the lockout/strike situation facing our elementary children here in Hamilton-Wentworth. My frustration is because of the inability of the bargaining process to occur within the limits of a funding formula that is restrictive in allowing flexibility in the process-a funding formula that continues to ignore the professional aid that is needed outside the classroom....

"Madam Minister, a society that neglects or exploits some of its members cannot endure and must not exist."

The fact of the matter is that parents want their kids back in school, teachers want the kids back in school and the board does. The problem is that there isn't enough money because you cut funding to education. You caused this strike, and it's your responsibility to step in, resolve it and put our kids back in the classrooms.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today in this House to commend the many people who allowed their names to stand in yesterday's municipal elections across Ontario. We all know the importance of having quality candidates from which the electorate can choose. We also know the importance of getting the electorate out to vote to voice their approval or disapproval of the issues put forth by our politicians. It is important for the integrity of our democracy to ensure that the will of the people is expressed and accurately recorded.

Elections don't just happen. It takes many volunteers who help in a campaign or who help out on election day or with the advance polls. I would like to thank all those who give so readily of their time in pursuit of their beliefs. I would also like to congratulate all those who were successful in their bid for a municipal seat.

I personally look forward to working with those elected in the riding of Peterborough over the next three years.

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'd like to join with my colleague from Hamilton West and voice my concern over the strike in which 40,000 children in Hamilton-Wentworth public schools are at home. We are entering the third week of this strike, and there will be consequences for these children's education.

Because of this government's cutbacks-$1,000 per pupil-and because of the dysfunctional funding formula, the board's hands are tied. There is absolutely no flexibility for negotiating. Parents are frustrated, and they have taken this matter into their hands. They have approached our office with a petition which will take effect today. I'd like to read part of the petition. This comes from parents.

"Whereas our children are not receiving the quality education they deserve and for which we as parents and taxpayers have already paid; and

"Whereas the government has cut $1,000 per pupil from the education budget;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario immediately become involved to reinstate appropriate funding to ensure that our children return to their classrooms to receive the quality education to which they are entitled and which has been paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario."

Lorrie McKibbon, a parent from Stoney Creek, started this petition. We're gathering thousands of signatures. Parents have taken this into their own hands because the government is washing its hands of the responsibility of putting our kids and our teachers back in the schools.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm sure I join with all members of the House in recognizing the people who stood for public office over the last few days in the municipal elections. I personally want to thank them for their willingness to serve the public.

In my wonderful constituency of Durham, voters chose a strong slate of candidates to form our local and regional governments. John Mutton, whose family roots are well established in our area, was elected as the new mayor of the municipality of Clarington. Jane Rowe, Don MacArthur, Pat Pingle and Gord Robinson were elected to the Clarington council, while Jim Schell and Charlie Trim were chosen to represent Clarington at the region of Durham.

In the township of Scugog, mayor Doug Moffatt was re-elected, defeating Howard Hall, a former mayor at one time. Larry Corrigan, Marilyn Pearce, Jim McMillen, Dave Dietlein and Charlie Norris were elected to Scugog council, and Ken Carruthers was chosen to represent Scugog at the region of Durham.

Finally, in north Oshawa, Clare Aker was re-elected, and John Neal, who is new to the Oshawa council, was elected in wards 6 and 7, and Louise Parkes was elected in the combined wards 5 and 6.

I want to take this opportunity to offer special thanks to Mayor Diane Hamre, who served the municipality of Clarington so well for so many years, and I wish all representatives the very best in the years ahead. I look forward to working with them, as I'm sure all members do, to bring good government and accountability to the people who elect us.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: On Wednesday, November 8, my assistant received a piece of e-mail correspondence alerting us to the fact that on the government's Web site the Public Appointments Secretariat, pursuant to order in council 1769/2000, would be seeking members for the Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board. You will be aware that the legislation which creates this same Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board is still in debate. In fact, the government is holding public hearings on this legislation on November 20, 22 and 29. This legislation must also still pass third reading and receive royal assent.

Ministry officials informed our contacts that the quality assessment board was created by OIC in September. Does this not make the public hearings and in fact the entire function of third reading empty of meaning and merely for show on the government's part?

There are a number of past similar cases which bear reference here. Mr Broadbent made similar points and comments in a case raised by Mr Bud Wildman. The member for Algoma said: "There surely is a contempt of Parliament by proceeding with these ads before Parliament has agreed. Beyond that there is a contempt for the people of Canada if they say they are going to have hearings across the country and not pay the slightest attention to what the people of Canada have to say."

A similar case was brought before this House in 1997 with regard to pamphlets being distributed which assumed the passage of Bill 103. At that time the Speaker ruled that there was a case of contempt to be found. Although there are no pamphlets in this case, once again the government is acting in advance of the passage of certain legislation to set up committees and boards to carry out work which is not legal until the passage of certain pieces of legislation. In that case, Justice Brennan ruled, "I conclude that the orders in council were made without authority and are of no legal effect. The appointments are therefore void."

I ask the Speaker to investigate this matter and to inform this House and myself whether by circumventing the legislative process this government has shown contempt for democracy in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member for her point of privilege, and I will reserve a ruling on that.

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Wednesday, November 1, the House leader of the official opposition rose on a point of order to question the orderliness of the government's notice of motion number 70, a time allocation motion on Bill 69.

The member contended that the motion should be found to be out of order since it provides for Bill 69 to be recommended to the standing committee for clause-by-clause review, for the purpose, in his view, of "changing the substance of the bill ... and in effect introducing a new bill, a completely different bill, with no opportunity to debate."

The House leader for the third party also made a submission wherein he asserted that the government's intention in time-allocating Bill 69 and recommitting it for clause-by-clause was to amend the bill so extensively that it would emerge from committee as a substantially new proposition, one that had not had sufficient debate. If this were to be allowed, the member contended, then by using this procedural mechanism the government would, in effect, vicariously be able to substitute previous debate on the bill.

The official opposition House leader also expressed concern with the provision in the motion that states, "in the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported and received by the House."

Let me address these two concerns in reverse order by stating, firstly, that all members will know that time allocation motions are nothing new to this House. They have been used with some regularity for well over a decade. Such motions are clearly permitted in our standing orders. The provision in the motion in question that deems the bill to be passed by the committee if it is not reported by a specified date is not a novel provision. Identical clauses have appeared in numerous previous time allocation motions as far back as 1989.

On the issue of the members' arguments about what Bill 69 might look like when it is returned from committee compared to its current form, I can only say that this is a very speculative concern and really has nothing to do with the orderliness of the motion, sitting on notice, of time allocation on the bill. The scenario raised by the two opposition House leaders is hypothetical and therefore beyond the competence of the Speaker to render judgment. Additionally, the orderliness of any amendments to the bill in committee will be determined at that time by the committee Chair.

I find the time allocation motion itself, government notice of motion number 70, to be in order.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Mr Beaubien from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presents the committee's report as follows and moves its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, without amendment:

Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act in respect of penalties / Projet de loi 124, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement, la

Loi sur les ressources en eau de l'Ontario et la

Loi sur les pesticides en ce qui concerne des peines ayant trait à l'environnement.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Tuesday, October 24, 2000, the bill is ordered for third reading.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, November 14, and Wednesday, November 15, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin question period, I'd like to take this opportunity to invite all members to welcome to our chamber a special visitor who is seated at the table, Mr Bruce Jamerson, who is the Clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. On January 1, municipalities will be handed by you the responsibility to deliver ambulance services across Ontario. The cities and towns don't want it. Dalton McGuinty and Ontario Liberals have argued that this is the kind of service that ought to be managed by the province. In many cases the cities and towns feel they don't have the expertise or the dollars to run the system. Local paramedics in Kingston, for example, have said that you are downloading a system that's on the verge of collapse.

In Ottawa-Carleton, the regional medical health officer said that the ambulance system in Ottawa is so slow, the response times so poor, that 100 lives per year are being lost. That's before the downloading.

Minister, response times count. What paramedics can do on the scene immediately is essential and is the key: the quicker the ambulance arrives, the more likely the people are to live. What guarantees are you providing that after the downloading our towns and cities will have everything they need to improve response times and everything they need to guarantee enough paramedics to do the job?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As you know, the government did extend the transition time for municipalities to assume responsibility for ambulance services by one year, to January 1, 2001. There has been a committee very hard at work to take a look at all of the issues assumed with the transfer of the responsibilities. The work, I am pleased to say, will continue to take place over the course of the next year as the government continues to work with municipalities in order to ensure that there will be high-quality, responsive and seamless land ambulance services provided.

As the member knows, we will continue to set the licence operators. We will continue to set the standards and monitor the ambulance service and training standards.

Mrs Pupatello: Minister, there are towns and cities now that don't meet the provincial standards. You've hardly had a hand in fixing that.

Let me tell you what's happening in Brampton. The fire department in Brampton is now collecting data to present to its new city council. That data is very frightening. It is instances that show that the public is at risk. That's already happening today in Brampton. For example, during this transition period to your January 1 deadline, there are instances where ambulances are arriving without oxygen, without collars-the basic supplies. The firefighters also on the scene watch in utter amazement while they hear the excuse, "We're out of supplies." Ambulances are arriving with one paramedic.

At certain non-peak times, there is one ambulance considered on service in Brampton, with 325,000 people. There are more than half-hour waits because ambulances have to come from Toronto when required.

My question is, are you doing the right thing? Are you certain you are doing the right thing by the people who live in Brampton and in the rest of Ontario when you download this ambulance service, considering the chaos that already exists?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The government and the municipalities have reached an agreement on a funding template for ambulance costs. At the request of the municipalities, in March 1999 our government assumed half, a 50-50 sharing, of the approved costs of ambulance services. We have indicated that we will honour our funding commitment and we are also providing 50% of the funding for incurred costs for provision of services in 1999. As the member may or may not know, we are providing 100% of the funding for dispatch services.

However, I would also add that the government and the members of the municipalities will continue to meet over the course of the next year in order to ensure that there are appropriate standards. They will review the service standards and they will ensure there's a smooth transition.

Mrs Pupatello: Let's talk about Mississauga. They are now collecting data to count how many times the ambulance arrives with one paramedic, the driver. How does one paramedic arrive, jump out from behind the wheel, carry the IV bottle, drag the stretcher, the collar, the oxygen, defibrillate, do CPR, all of those things, one driver who arrives on the scene? How do they do it? They can't.

That's why Mississauga is now collecting data that counts how many times the fire trucks are out of service because the firefighters have had to jump on the ambulance and go with the ambulance to the emergency ward. Guess what? They don't get a ride back.

This same thing is happening in Brampton. In Brampton, the deputy fire chief is currently negotiating with a cab company in order to get a better rate to go pick up the firefighter because it is cheaper than sending the fire truck to go get him from the emergency ward. This is the instability in the system that you've caused. For example, Brampton has lost 46 key trained paramedics because there is no stability in the system.

I ask you again, are you doing the right thing by downloading ambulance services on to cities and towns when already in metropolises like Mississauga and Brampton we have this kind of chaos?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it is unfortunate that the member opposite seemed to think this was somewhat amusing. We don't find it amusing. Our government is working with the municipalities in order to ensure that there is a seamless transition, in order to ensure that we continue to provide a high-quality, responsive and seamless land ambulance service throughout Ontario.

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Today you unveiled your mandatory drug testing plan, a plan that has certainly more to do with welfare-bashing than it does with any honest attempt to deal with the complex issue of addiction. You know there is not one jurisdiction that has implemented mandatory drug testing with any success, not here in Canada and not in the United States.

The reasons for that are very simple: this is a grotesque abuse of power, a transparent, cynically motivated political move and a stunning violation of human rights. While your government continues to perpetrate the myth of rampant and prevalent drug abuse among people on social assistance, it's pretty clear the only thing running rampant are the vicious steps your government will take to bash those who fall on troubled times.

My question is this: in light of the fact that studies have shown that drug abuse is no more prevalent among welfare recipients than among other segments of the population, why are you once again attacking our most vulnerable citizens?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Why don't we put aside the rhetoric the member opposite speaks of and look at the facts? This government wants to provide supports to people on social assistance to realize the dignity that comes with a job, the pride that comes with independence. We want to provide that help in whatever form it can be, whether it's literacy training, whether it's job skills, whether it's basic education, whether it's a workfare placement, whether it's other skills or upgrading, or whether it's job search courses.

We don't want to write anyone off. We have a certain number of people on social assistance who are addicted to drugs, who need help. What does this government want to do? We want to be able to provide them with that support. We want to provide them with treatment so they can realize the dignity that comes from moving from welfare to work.

Mr Gravelle: What is abundantly clear is this government doesn't want to deal with the real barriers to employment faced by people on welfare, challenges such as the need for child care, employment supports and the rising cost of living.

Let me be very clear. Mandatory drug testing has been a disaster wherever it has been contemplated. In Michigan, the courts have thrown out the Republican governor's plan to implement mandatory testing, not once but twice, the second time as recently as this September. The courts have concluded that mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients is a grossly unfair intrusion into the lives of people whose only crime is being poor. In fact, Ontario's human rights commissioner, Keith Norton, someone this government should be listening to, has already expressed his concerns very clearly about this plan.

He told your government that our Human Rights Code does not allow people to be discriminated against because of an addiction.

Minister, this is more than a slippery slope you are on; it's a gross abuse of power. Why is your government willing to violate the human rights of any Ontarian?

Hon Mr Baird: Our government wants to be able to provide that hand up to someone who so obviously needs help. The member opposite's view is that we should do nothing. He thinks that's fair. Do absolutely nothing. If someone goes into a welfare office, high on drugs, just turn your back and hopefully it will go away. What do I say to the caseworker I spoke with last year who told me that someone on welfare has been coming into her office month after month, year after year, with track marks up and down her arm?

Do we simply turn our back and leave that caseworker powerless to be able to provide help and simply watch that woman shoot her welfare cheque up her arm? That option is not an option for this government. We want to be there to provide the support and the treatment necessary to help that person realize the dignity that comes with a job.

Mr Gravelle: Minister, you are absolutely unbelievable. If this was truly about being interested in helping people, you'd be more interested in dealing with the fact that Ontario's addiction centres, which have not received a base funding increase in over six years, are not able to even deal with the demand for voluntary treatment. If you want to help, fund the addiction centres.

The reason this government is not addressing those realities is because this nasty announcement today is not about helping people. It's about welfare bashing and knocking those people on welfare one more time. This is an ugly move by our government of the day. Mandatory drug testing is likely illegal and is clearly a violation of our treasured Ontario Human Rights Code.

Minister, are you prepared to go to court, at great expense to taxpayers, to advance your latest attempt to bash the poor? Will you do something else to help the process? Can anything stop you from attacking the poorest and most vulnerable people in our province? What will you do to positively change this? Get rid of this plan. It's a disaster; it's a farce.

Hon Mr Baird: It's hard to take the Ontario Liberal Party seriously. They keep changing their minds and flip-flopping.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): What does Dalton say?

Hon Mr Baird: "What does Dalton say?" the member asks. Here is what Dalton McGuinty said. When asked about his opinion on drug testing, he said, "No, I'm not against the idea." Only two days later, Tim Murphy, president of the Ontario Liberal Party, came out and said, "In fact, McGuinty's policy is supportive of drug treatment." But that was then and this is now. The Liberal Party says one thing before the election, when they are seeking votes from the people of this province, only to flip-flop and make me dizzy after election day. Come clean and tell us your policy.

MEMBERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier. The public is outraged at your stampede to the gravy trough for a 42% pay increase for MPPs.

Let me get this straight. Your policy for workers on the minimum wage is to freeze their income for six years. Your policy for the poorest citizens in Ontario, those who have to rely on social assistance, is to freeze their income for five years. Your policy for daycare workers, teachers, education workers, nurses and health care workers is 2% or less. But your policy for yourselves is, "Get to the trough and get 42%." How do you justify that?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I know the House leader, who has been dealing with their House leader, wants to answer this question.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): There is a variety of options that various members of the Legislature have been considering with regard to MPPs' compensation. I might point out that during the 1990s, MPPs' salaries were reduced on two occasions, by 5% and 5%, and that over the last 20 years, while public service salaries have increased by about 96%, MPPs' salaries have increased by 46%. I think all members of the Legislature and the public would agree that some readjustment to MPPs' salaries has to be done, and we are considering options at this particular time.

Mr Hampton: I need to be really clear about the record. It is your government that is putting forward a 42% increase proposal. It is your legislation, not anyone else's. I want to remind this government that you are the people who in 1994 and 1995 went across the province and said you were going to reduce the salaries, you were going to reduce the incomes. Now that you are at the trough, the hypocrisy comes out. You want to increase-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member can't use that word. You will have to withdraw it.

Mr Hampton: I withdraw.

The doublespeak comes out. Now that you are at the trough, you want a 42% increase. You want to increase the pensions and increase the incomes for each and every one of you, but at the same time you want to freeze the minimum wage, frozen for six years; freeze the incomes for people who are the poorest in the province; limit those people who are working very hard in our hospitals and our schools to 2% or less. How do you justify your pig-at-the-trough attitude?

Hon Mr Sterling: The leader of the third party is referring to one of the options which would put us at a parallel with the federal MPs of this country. Some members of the Legislature felt that MPPs and MPs should be getting paid the same because they represent the same number of people, the same geographic areas etc.

The MP parity bill has not been introduced by this government to this Legislature. We will consider what options are available. I am continuing to talk to the opposition parties to try to get some degree of agreement before we proceed, and when that process is completed, that's the point at which we'll put forward a piece of legislation.

Mr Hampton: This is the government that says that the people who have responsibility for our schools, trustees, should have their incomes limited to $5,000 a year. This is the Premier who stumped across the province and said that he was going to lower the incomes. Now this is the Premier who wants to have an income higher than the Prime Minister. Such incredible doublespeak the citizens of Ontario have never seen.

I want to ask the minister again, what is the justification for freezing the minimum wage for six years? Freezing the incomes of the poorest for five years? Telling teachers, daycare workers, hospital workers and ambulance paramedics that they are limited to 2% or less, but you deserve a 42% increase. Tell us, what's the justification?

Hon Mr Sterling: I don't feel it's necessary to justify something which we have not put forward in legislation here in the House. We have put forward four or five options with regard to dealing with this issue, and I'm continuing to talk to them.

Now, I would remind the leader of the third party that after the last provincial election I was one of the three individuals who was involved in negotiation regarding party status. At that point in time-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member, take a seat, we'll wait. Most of the banter is being done with humour, but still it's far too noisy.

Hon Mr Sterling: I just wanted to remind the leader of the third party that because of the determination of the House at that particular time, his salary and the salaries of, I believe, seven of his caucus were substantially increased because they were asking for party status. So the people who have really got a raise during this Legislature have been the NDP.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. When you introduced Bill 139 last week, there were a lot of people in the province who wondered why you would introduce such a potentially disruptive labour bill during a time when the North American economy is booming. Further, when we look at Bill 69 and the trouble and disruption that's likely to cause, we ask ourselves, why would you do this?

Well, isn't it interesting, when we start to look, that your party, since 1995, has received $12 million in political contribution from the corporate sector in Ontario, and further the eight general contractors that are the specific bonanza winners as a result of Bill 69, which you're shutting down debate on today, this afternoon, they contributed over $107,000 to your party.

Minister, my question to you is this: how can you in all good conscience call political payback to your corporate friends workplace democracy, when all it really means is that workers are going to lose their jobs using their right to organize into a union? How can you do that, Minister?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Making that presumptive argument would then mean that while you were in power, the money you received from the unions in this province directly impacted the legislation you passed, such as Bill 40. Your suggestion at the time was, "Those positions the unions took by giving us money gave them no special preference." Well, I for one believe you, and I offer the same argument today. People can give money to the Conservative Party as well as the Liberals and the NDP, and many do give to all three parties. But there isn't any way, shape or form that any donation to this party can dictate or control legislation we introduce in this House.

The fact of the matter remains, I'll further put, that as far I know, the eight generals in Ontario that you spoke about before are certainly not overwhelmed or excited about Bill 69. They're not endorsing it. They said they don't endorse it. So I don't understand where you make the equation. They may have given us donations, but they're not happy about Bill 69.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, the reality is that your government has been bought and sold so many times that I'm surprised you haven't been auctioned off on eBay.

If you want to talk about contributions, let's talk contributions. You've received over $12 million from the corporate sector since 1995. In that same length of time, the unions contributed $450,000 to the NDP, which represents 3.8% of the total political contributions you received from the corporate sector. The fact of the matter is that $12 million screams really loudly to this government. We want to know why you think it's OK to sell off a worker's rights just so your party can receive $12 million in corporate contributions. How can you call that workplace democracy?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, the tone is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. The charge is absolutely absurd. The best thing that ever happened to the workers in this province was electing the Conservative Party of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock.

Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The best thing that happened was electing us, simply because now the workers of Ontario are working, which is what they weren't doing under the NDP. Nobody on this side is going to apologize for any of our labour legislation. It's been good, it's been progressive and it's put people back to work. Unemployment was at double digits under you. Welfare rolls were expanding. I don't know where you get off trying to tell us that what we do isn't good for the workers when there is money in their pockets, bread on their tables and they have jobs to go to.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. At the Ontario Hospital Association's annual meeting last week, you stated that Ontario hospitals now have stable funding. Nothing could be further from the facts. Your announcements of new funding are being made eight months into the budget year. Hospitals have had no idea of what their budgets are or will be, and they're still not sure.

The lack of stable funding has meant that many hospitals are hiring private agency nurses at almost twice the rate of a senior staff nurse. You can't hire full-time nurses if you don't know how much money you're going to have. Toronto's largest hospital was forced to lay off half of its allied professionals earlier this year because they didn't know what their budget was going to be. Now they have some additional money, but the people are gone and they're not available to be rehired.

Minister, I ask you today, if you are serious about stable funding, will you guarantee as a starting point that no hospital will receive less next year than it is receiving today?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): We're simply seeing more of the fearmongering that this member began prior to constituency week. We are now at the highest level of funding for hospitals that we have ever seen in the history of Ontario. We are at $8.2 billion.

If the member had seen the applause and the appreciation from the hospitals that was exhibited last week, and certainly in the communications that we've received, she would recognize they are grateful for the progress that has been made, as we have worked co-operatively with the Ontario Hospital Association and responded to their concerns and their issues. I am pleased to say that this year we are providing $8.2 billion in funding, the highest ever.

Mrs McLeod: But the problem, Minister, is that not only will you not guarantee stable funding for individual hospitals, you won't even guarantee that the total amount of money you're spending on hospitals isn't going to be cut next year. Hospitals do not know what funding they're going to get and they don't know why some hospitals are getting funding and some are not getting funding.

I remind you that last spring you took over the Hamilton Health Sciences Centre. You said they were irresponsible because they were running a $42-million deficit. You fixed that problem. You fixed it by funding the entire $42 million. Last month, an angry St Joseph's Hospital in the Hamilton area met with their local member, your parliamentary assistant, to ask why their deficit hadn't been addressed. Mr Clark said that it was just an administrative oversight, a mix-up. He assured them that their deficit problem would be fixed in the next round of announcements. It was, and we're glad of that.

But why not fix the deficits at Soldiers' Memorial in Orillia or Sudbury General or Kingston General? Do they have to get more political in order to get more money?

You have not brought in the new hospital funding formula that you promised last spring. In the absence of that funding formula, will you tell us, how are you deciding which hospitals are winners and which hospitals are still losers?

Hon Mrs Witmer: This member is really quite irresponsible in some of the comments that are being made. I would just remind the member that there were three allocations of money that were set aside for hospitals. There was the first funding announcement of $471 million, there was the second funding announcement related to growth funding, and there will be a third announcement, which will be made later this month, related to priority program funding.

Funding is provided to hospitals based on the operational plans that they submit to the ministry, and also in response to the actual services that are being provided.

Also, if you want to talk about the new funding formula for hospitals, that funding formula is at the point where we have been asked by the Ontario Hospital Association if they could have one more opportunity to review it. So we said, "Yes, if that's what you request, one more opportunity to review it with your members, we would support that," as opposed to imposing it without that one more round.

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): My question is for the Minister of Education. As you're aware, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board is embroiled in a labour dispute with the elementary school teachers. The strike/lockout is now 12 days old, with neither side moving toward negotiations. Both sides are stuck in their own positions. I have fielded hundreds of phone calls from parents in the last 24 hours who are angry and want their kids back in school. They want back-to-work legislation and I want back-to-work legislation. Will you introduce back-to-work legislation?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I appreciate that the member for Stoney Creek has spent a great deal of time on the weekend talking to parents about this particular issue and is certainly concerned about what is happening. The parents, as I understand from the honourable member and the feedback we've received, are very clear: they want their children back in the classroom, and I certainly agree with that.

Actually, many boards and unions across this province have already made agreements, made settlements, without disruption to classrooms, and I think these two parties here would be well advised to follow that model. We've certainly encouraged them to do that. The school board has the monies available to do that deal. But if that is not possible, we would certainly be prepared to look at other options, including back-to-work legislation.

Mr Clark: There are 12 days lost. With the new curriculum, the parents in my community believe, and I agree, that they can't afford any more time off for their children. The opposition members are bellowing in this House that it's a question of money, yet the union leader says that the board has the money. The opposition opposed back-to-work legislation. They're willing to risk the children's year. I'm not. I ask you again, when will you introduce back-to-work legislation?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Just to confirm, the school board has had an increase in their resources of almost 6% this year, even though their actual student enrolment only went up less than 1%, so they have had a significant increase in the resources they have. This is indeed the view that we've seen in media reports, where all of the parties seem to be indicating that the bargaining process has broken down. If that is indeed the view that is confirmed, we are prepared to take a look at whether we should do back-to-work legislation.

I'd like to assure the honourable member that we need to make that decision very, very quickly because parents want their kids in school and that's indeed where they should be.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Education. I want to ask you about the strike in Hamilton as well. Despite the rhetoric and the bullying and the threatening from across the floor, the reality is that you are responsible for the situation. You wanted control of the education system in this province. You changed the funding formula. You decided how much money school boards were going to get. You are responsible for the strike in Hamilton right now.

The reality is this: under your watch and your government's watch, funding for students in the Hamilton board of education has dropped by an average of $1,100 per student since 1995. That's your stats, your information. Instead of threatening back-to-work legislation, instead of threatening to continue to divide and split our community, instead of the tough, bullying talk, will you today commit to restoring the $1,100 per student that you stole out of the education system in Hamilton and end the strike today?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the honourable member's asking for special funding treatment for his board, but this board has already received additional monies this year, more than their student enrolment-actually, significantly more than their student enrolment. It's interesting. They've been able to settle with their secondary teachers. There are many other school boards across this province that are settling, making arrangements with both their elementary and secondary teachers without disruption in the classrooms. It is not acceptable that this disruption is continuing for as long as it is.

I hope the honourable member, should we decide to bring in back-to-work legislation, would be prepared to support it on behalf of the parents in this community.

Mr Agostino: What I'm prepared to support is an attempt by your government to bring in the type of funding that's necessary to allow the school board to get those teachers back into the classroom.

Ray Mulholland, the acting chair of the salary committee who, frankly, knows more about education than your whole caucus combined, said, "My frustration is because of the inability of the bargaining process within the limits of the funding formula, which is restrictive. My disappointment is to you, Minister Ecker. I find it difficult to negotiate with one hand tied behind my back." That is a quote from trustee Ray Mulholland.

The reality is, as much as you and your parliamentary assistant and your friend from Stoney Creek are going to try to bully and intimidate the teachers and the parents and the board, you are responsible for this. You've got to acknowledge the fact that the money you've cut out of the educational system in Hamilton is exactly the reason why there's a strike and a lockout today. I ask you again, for the sake of the community, for the sake of the children, for the sake of education in the city of Hamilton, will you today commit to restoring the $1,100 per student that your government has cut since 1995 from the Hamilton board of education?

Hon Mrs Ecker: One, as I said, there has been an increase in resources for this board.

Secondly, I really find the hypocrisy-excuse me; I shouldn't use that word, but the change in position from the caucus across the way. When I had teachers standing out in front of my constituency office wanting to go back into the classroom, do you know who was standing there saying, "No, no. Don't go back to the students"? A Liberal member of this caucus saying no. When we had teachers out there walking the line, when we had teachers out there depriving students of their services in the classroom, who was walking the line with them? Dalton McGuinty.

So I have some difficulty with now, because it's in his home community and all of a sudden he's getting phone calls from parents-I gather the member from Stoney Creek spends more time answering those phone calls-now all of a sudden he's saying, "Oh, please fix it."

We are listening to the parties involved. We will take the appropriate steps. We believe those children should be back in school. That's certainly what the parents want.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Correctional Services. Minister, once again I was appalled to read in the newspaper about another offender being released on early parole from a federal institution. It seems unbelievable that the federal Liberal government would ignore the impact of crimes felt by victims. Patrick Kinlin embezzled millions of dollars from trusting clients, many of them senior citizens. Now he's being released on early parole by the federal Liberal government because his offence did not involve violence, if you can actually believe that.

This man destroyed the lives of many clients. Minister, what do you say about a system that uses a yardstick of violence and not the impact on victims in the decision to grant day parole?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I thank the member for Simcoe North very much for the question. I too was appalled when I read in the paper that the federal Liberals had indeed-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Sampson: I hear the Liberals bellyaching across the floor and I say to them that I was appalled that this individual was released after having served approximately five months of a sentence. We had been saying for a number of months that the Liberals have this quota where they have been trying to flush inmates out of correctional institutions into community sentencing. This only goes to prove that indeed they do have that quota because they did let this individual out who had committed some very terrible crimes before serving even the slightest portion of his sentence.

I find that appalling, I know you find that appalling and I think the majority of people of this province and this country find that appalling. I encourage the Liberals who are bellyaching across the floor to stand up and say it's appalling-

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

Mr Dunlop: Thank you very much for your response to that, Minister. It's reassuring to know that our government is on the side of law-abiding citizens, unlike our federal Liberal cousins across the way here.

Minister, the articles in the Toronto newspapers have also touched upon escapes, most recently that of a 73-year-old cop killer. In fact, it seems that every week we read about cop killers being released on early parole by these people. I am shocked that the federal Liberal government would let a violent offender who's a career criminal sentenced initially to death back in the 1970s work at a humane society outside of the minimum security institution, where he simply strolled away.

Our government recently expanded our prisoner work program. Can you assure the citizens of Ontario that a situation like this will not happen under you?

Hon Mr Sampson: I thank the member for Simcoe North for the question. Yes, we do believe in work programs. We believe in work programs because we think it's helpful for the inmate to learn what it is to have a hard day's job, to work for our community, to pay back society for the crimes they've committed. But of course our programs relate to those individuals who are serving the back part of their sentence, generally 60 to 90 days left in their sentence. We think it's important for those individuals to be out working. They are fully supervised while they're on their program, which is a policy we've put in place.

We think work programs are helpful. The federal Liberals of course believe that they should be flushing the system of convicted criminals and emptying their jails, because that's their policy. They don't have the regard for victims of crime that we do.

I say again to my colleagues across the floor, the members from the Liberal bench, that you stated just last week that you believed jail should be jail. I say to you, stand up and say-

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

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): To the Minister of the Environment, the people of Ontario want to know what's going on with organized crime in the hazardous waste business. Under your government, hazardous waste imports in Ontario have increased by 138%. Ontario has become a magnet for toxic waste. It's seen as a cheap dumping ground with weakened environmental laws and little enforcement capacity.

I remind you that it was your government that devastated the Ministry of the Environment by cutting staff in inspection and enforcement alone by 28%. The government's message has been, "Ontario is open for toxins," and it looks like some pretty shady operations are taking advantage of that.

Minister, tell us how much toxic waste is being dumped illegally by the Mob in Ontario?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I want to say to the member opposite that this government is indeed committed to maintaining and enhancing environmental protection in our province. That's why the treatment of hazardous waste is an important issue that we take very seriously. That's why in September 1999 my ministry took immediate steps to strengthen our hazardous waste regulation and requirements. On September 17, 1999, my ministry announced a six-point action plan to strengthen our hazardous waste regulation and requirements for hazardous waste facilities in our province.

The action plan included revising the hazardous waste manifesting requirements and regulation to be the toughest in our province's history. That's why last week, on November 7, we announced the last stage of our six-point action plan.

The changes deliver on our government's promise to strengthen and modernize the regulation to make it comparable to and compatible with neighbouring US jurisdictions. The list of chemicals included in the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

schedule put Ontario-

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

Ms Churley: This CISO report said very specifically that things have gotten worse under your government, and your six-point plan doesn't even come close to meeting the requirements of the US plan. You have been told that.

Under the NDP government, the MOE, the MTO, the OPP and Metro Toronto police began a major investigation. Measures were being developed. Then you came into power and your government cut the Ministry of the Environment staff by 28%, the very people who had the expertise to deal with this.

Will you now admit that your government was wrong to have slashed the Ministry of the Environment's budget and gutted its enforcement capacity, and will you now commit to hiring back at least 500 new environmental enforcement officers to fight problems like the Mob involved in bringing hazardous waste into our province?

Hon Mr Newman: The changes we made to our hazardous waste regulation include replacing the outdated leaching test that determines whether or not waste is hazardous. Our new toxicity characteristic leaching procedure test is more accurate when testing for organic contaminants.

We've also updated the number of contaminants on our list of hazardous materials in our province. We've added 88 chemicals to the list of 31, putting Ontario ahead of the 40 chemicals found in the US regulations. We've also added a derived-from rule similar to that of the United States EPA. Now hazardous waste will always be considered hazardous no matter has happened.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the minister take his seat. Would the member for Brampton Centre come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Last warning to the member for Brampton Centre, and Toronto as well.

If you want to carry on your conversations, do it outside. We can't hear in here. Minister of the Environment.

Hon Mr Newman: Criminal investigations are the mandate of police agencies. We work very closely with the proper authorities to provide information on the environment to ensure that our resources get the protection they deserve. That's why in 1997 the Ministry of the Environment formed an intelligence unit within our investigations and enforcement branch. When appropriate, our branch will co-operate with Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario and other enforcement agencies to assist in investigations where the environment may have been compromised.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I want to return to an answer you gave the House about the native burial ground at Ipperwash Provincial Park. It is the heart of the matter at Ipperwash, and there is considerable evidence of a native burial ground.

You said, "We also have an archaeological survey of Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1972. That report indicated that there were no finds made and recommended that no further archaeological work of any kind be carried out there."

What you didn't tell us was that attached to that study, we've learned under freedom of information, was a study by your own staff that said this report cannot be used to say with authority that there are no burial grounds within Ipperwash Provincial Park. The methodology as described in the report would not uncover possible sites.

My question to you is, why did you deliberately say to the people of Ontario that you had a study saying there was no burial ground when you had attached to that a note from your own staff saying you couldn't reach that conclusion with that study?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for the question. The question he asked I believe over a year ago now was specific. If I remember correctly, he was alluding to reports that had taken place 20 or 30 years ago in the province. When he asked the question, I answered it accurately, and the answer remains the same.

Mr Phillips: Exactly. You said to the people of Ontario that you had a study indicating no burial ground. You had, at the time you made that statement, attached to that study a note from your own staff saying that you can't use this study to reach that conclusion.

We know that in 1937 an Ontario provincial engineer found a burial ground there and reported it. We know that you required that the crown drop 23 charges of trespass because they found that you had evidence of a burial ground within your records.

I go back to my basic question. You told the House that you had a study indicating no burial ground when you had attached to that study a memo from your own staff telling you, "Don't use this information because you can't reach that conclusion." I want to know today, why would you tell the House something that your own staff said was a conclusion you could not reach? Why would you deliberately say that to the people of Ontario when you knew it not to be true?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): To the member, that is an accusation. He can't say that. He's going to have to rephrase that and withdraw that.

Mr Phillips: Why would you deliberately say to the people of Ontario something that the briefing note said was not the fact?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I would take exception to the way the member opposite has positioned this. In fact, I stand by what I reported to the House on that day. It was an accurate report. If there was any trickery done in this House on this issue, it was the representation by the member opposite on the day prior to that answer, I believe, when he represented that 1937 report as if it were a report done over the last short period of time. In fact, the member opposite refers to reports that are 60, 40 and 30 years old. I think they have been represented properly in the House.

ELDER ABUSE

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Yesterday I read a newspaper report about another telemarketing fraud targeted specifically at seniors. As we all know, each year many seniors are victims of scams and frauds and lose literally hundreds and thousands of dollars. Minister, I know you've been working on a provincial strategy to combat elder abuse. Can you update the House on that particular strategy?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I'd like to thank the member from Peterborough for the question and I'd like to say that I know everyone in the House is concerned about telemarketing fraud and financial fraud that happens, especially with the seniors in Ontario.

Right now we're working on the elder abuse strategy, as was referenced a few seconds ago. Let me say that we're looking at three areas within the elder abuse strategy which we think are important as a result of round tables we've had, not only at Queen's Park but all across the province. We're looking at ways that we can educate the public so everyone is aware of all the different types of elder abuse, but especially about financial elder abuse. We're looking at coordinating communities' resources so that we have people in communities who can help seniors recognize when they are being taken advantage of.

And the last thing we're doing is looking to train front-line staff. We believe if we work on all those fronts, we'll be able to reduce elder abuse in Ontario.

Mr Stewart: I'm pleased to hear that. I know over the last number of years I've had a number of calls from constituents in Peterborough over this particular situation, and I am becoming more and more concerned all the time as our population continues to age.

I've heard a lot about the consultation process for the creation of this strategy. I was hoping you could update the House on how you have undertaken the consultation process, and also let us know when we can expect to see this provincial strategy.

Hon Mrs Johns: I'd like to tell you that I'm working with a co-chair and a number of people from all across the province to put these round tables together and to consult with people. We've chosen a wide range of people because we believe it's not just the traditional methods that will help us to minimize and reduce elder abuse across the province. We're working with postal workers who go to the front doors of people's homes. We're working with grocery companies to ensure that people are eating properly. We have worked with more than 60 different groups. As I said, we started in Queen's Park.

We've moved out to different organizations and agencies, and we've had working group sessions throughout the last four to six months. We certainly hope we can introduce an elementary or a preliminary report in early 2001 and hear the results and comments from people all across the province as we move forward to having the first elder abuse strategy in all of Canada.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. A small business recently moved from the south side of Steeles Avenue West in my riding of York West to the north side of Steeles Avenue West into the riding of Vaughan-King-Aurora in the city of Vaughan. This small business moved from a 46,000-square-foot location to a 64,000-square-foot location at a saving of over $46,000 a year in assessment. This, Minister, is because of inequities that still exist in our taxation system.

Can you explain to small business owners in the city of Toronto why they have to pay double property taxes on the same property across the street? I'm asking what advice you have for the many thousands of small businesses in the city of Toronto that are caught in the same situation?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): That's a very germane question. It would have been more germane yesterday, the day of the municipal elections when citizens throughout Ontario and of course in Toronto cast their ballots for their municipal councillors. The issue of taxation is an important issue for all citizens, and particularly at the municipal level.

There's a challenge, as I understand it, for the city of Toronto because their taxation system, when you compare it to other regions in Ontario, tends to overtax the commercial-industrial sector and undertax the residential sector. There is a particular plan that has been reached with the Minister of Finance, through the current value assessment system, to get to a fair and equitable solution, but if the honourable member has any particular problems in his riding, I suggest he take it up with his local councillor.

Mr Sergio: It's very interesting. Let me tell you that the existing system of taxation is putting a lot of small businesses in Toronto, tied to long leases, at a great degree of disadvantage and at a much lower level of competition. Your refusal to bring equity and fairness to the taxation system continues to penalize thousands of small businesses in the city of Toronto. It's your responsibility to see that small business in Toronto can compete with similar businesses in the rest of the province in a fair, equitable manner and with a level playing field.

In two weeks, your government or yourself will be releasing the new assessment figures for the year 2001. Will you tell the House today that the new assessment will indeed reflect the necessary changes, making the system an equal playing field with equal opportunities to compete, or will you tell small business people in Toronto to go elsewhere and let the high-taxed properties in Toronto sit empty? Now is the time to tell the small business people in Ontario and Toronto what you will do for them.

Hon Mr Clement: I can certainly assure this House that my honourable colleague the Minister of Finance has indeed undertaken and will deliver on the legislation required to deal with the situation, what is called the 10-5-5, to ease into a fair and equitable property tax system.

But the honourable member seems to be suggesting that it's not a zero-sum game. The honourable member surely knows that the quicker we get the fairness and equity on the commercial-industrial side means the quicker we're raising taxes on the residential side. If the honourable member says the position of his party is to very quickly jack up, at double-digit levels, the property tax of residential taxpayers in the city of Toronto, perhaps he should come clean with that in this House.

ADVERTISING

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Lately I've noticed that more and more of the beer and alcohol companies are using sexual innuendoes and suggestions in their advertising in an effort to boost the sales of their products. This is something that I know many of my constituents are very concerned about. Even though I realize that alcohol companies are targeting those who are 19 years of age and older, it's difficult to try and prevent young children from viewing this alcohol advertising on TV, in movie ads and even on billboards.

Minister, could you please tell this House what you've been hearing about these types of ads and how you feel about them?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for Northumberland for the question. I'm also concerned with the recent trend toward suggestive advertising that liquor and beer companies seem to be using. While I understand that using sex in advertising is nothing new, I feel that some of these more recent ads are pushing the envelope.

I understand that the beverage alcohol industry is very competitive and that a provocative ad may be used to attract attention to their product. However, children can be exposed to this material very easily, and I think beer and alcohol companies should keep this in mind when designing their campaigns.

Mr Galt: Certainly, as I mentioned, it's of concern, and I appreciate the minister's response and the concern about what the alcohol companies are trying to do.

Even though it's the responsibility of parents to keep a close eye on what their children are watching on TV and what they are listening to on the radio, I still think there need to be some reasonable and justifiable limits on what's considered acceptable in our society. I understand that the Alcohol and Gaming Commission is involved in the regulation of alcohol advertising in this province. Minister, could you please explain what their role is in this process and what they're doing about it?

Hon Mr Runciman: Again, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission pre-approves and regulates the beverage alcohol advertising in the province. They do this to make sure the company is promoting responsible and moderate consumption of their product.

I think it's fair to say that the commission is also concerned with the recent trend by both liquor and beer producers to push into new areas. They recently formed a committee to review their guidelines, with special emphasis on sex in advertising, and they plan to report early in the new year. This could result in an extension of the scope of these guidelines in Ontario.

PETITIONS

PENSION INDEXATION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Just two hours ago at a demonstration in front of the Ministry of Labour, I received this petition, which is addressed to the Parliament of Ontario and reads as follows:

"Whereas injured workers petitioned the Legislature of Ontario from 1974 to get full indexation of their benefits and pensions; and

"Whereas in 1985, all political parties in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario agreed to enact full annual indexation in the Workers' Compensation Act; and

"Whereas in 1998, Bill 99 restricted indexation of pensions and benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act; and

"Whereas the Canada pension plan is fully indexed annually;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore full indexation on an annual basis to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act of Ontario."

Since I agree with the sentiments of this petition, I'm very happy to sign it as well.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature and it concerns northerners demanding that the Harris government eliminate the health care apartheid that they're practising.

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

I proudly affix my signature to the petition and give it to Allison to bring to the table.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition regarding this government's ongoing discrimination against northern cancer patients. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

I have affixed my signature to it. I agree with the petitioners. I'd like to thank Gerry Lougheed Jr for all of his work on this.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Just looking through these petitions from all over the province of Ontario, there must've been a vintage car show recently. I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in the name G.E. Spracklin and the name Tom Luke, who are from the Newcastle community in my riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign and support this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by several more constituents who continue to share the concerns about the inadequate funding of this program. I affix my signature in full agreement with them.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Espanola area services a population of 12,000 people and government statistics project a growth in population of people over the age of 75 to reach an estimated 336 by the year 2003;

"Whereas the long-term formula for the distribution of long-term-care beds would indicate a need for between 59 and 76 beds by the year 2003;

"Whereas just 30 long-term-care beds exist in the Espanola area with the result that a lengthy waiting list already exists and people are being placed in long-term-care facilities far distant from their home communities;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ontario government to immediately approve a proposal by the Espanola General Hospital, supported by the Algoma, Cochrane, Manitoulin and Sudbury District Health Council for an additional 34 long-term-care beds in Espanola."

This petition is signed by many people from Espanola and Nairn Centre.

PARENTAL LEAVE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas parental leave benefits will be extended to 50 weeks beginning December 31, 2000;

"Whereas many Ontario parents will want to take full parental leave to spend quality time with newborns and newly adopted children;

"Whereas Ontario's Employment Standards Act now only provides job protection for 18 weeks of parental leave;

"Whereas many Ontario families will be unable to access full parental leave because they cannot risk losing their jobs;

"Whereas the Ontario NDP has introduced Bill 138, the fair parental leave bill, which would extend job protection for parental leave to 35 weeks;

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

"We demand the Harris government immediately pass Bill 138, so that no Ontario parent will lose his/her job if they choose to take full parental leave."

This is signed by people in Toronto. I've affixed my signature to it, and I agree with this petition.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition that I'll read in part.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas motorists are not obeying the highway traffic law regarding stopping for school buses which are loading and unloading school children on the streets and highways of Ontario;

"Whereas the children who ride the school buses of Ontario are at risk and their safety is in jeopardy;

"Whereas the current school bus law is difficult to enforce since not only is a license plate number required, but positive identification of the driver and vehicle as well, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That Private Member's Bill 78," now Bill 24, "An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, which will be presented by Pat Hoy, MPP, Essex-Kent, as ballot item number 51 in the next legislative session, be passed at third reading."

Bill 24 "imposes liability on the owner of a vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus that has its overhead red signal lights flashing and:

"Increases the fines for drivers identified breaking the school bus law to a range from $500 to $1,000 on a first conviction and $1,000 to $2,000 on a subsequent conviction.

"It establishes a fine for identified vehicles breaking the school bus law of $1,000 to $2,000 on a first conviction and $2,000 to $3,000 on a subsequent conviction.

"And we ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

This is signed by a number of residents from Hagersville, Cayuga and Caledonia, and I affix my signature to it.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a number of other petitions regarding the northern Ontario health travel grant. These are in addition to the thousands of names that have come from Algoma-Manitoulin.

"Petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Northerners demand Harris government eliminate health care apartheid.

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

This is one petition of the 50,000 names that are being presented in this Legislature on behalf of this cause.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have another petition signed by a number of residents of Wawa.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas motorists are not obeying the highway traffic law regarding stopping for school buses which are loading and unloading school children on the streets and highways of Ontario;

"Whereas the children who ride the school buses of Ontario are at risk and their safety is in jeopardy;

"Whereas the current school bus law is difficult to enforce since not only is a license plate number required, but positive identification of the driver and vehicle as well, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That Private Member's Bill 78,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, which will be presented by Pat Hoy in the next legislative session, be passed at third reading.

"Bill 78"-now Bill 24-"imposes liability on the owner of a vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus that has its overhead red signal lights flashing and:

"Increases the fines for drivers identified breaking the school bus law to a range from $500 to $1,000 on a first conviction and $1,000 to $2,000 on a subsequent conviction.

"It establishes a fine for identified vehicles breaking the school bus law of $1,000 to $2,000 on a first conviction and $2,000 to $3,000 on a subsequent conviction.

"And we ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46, and notwithstanding any other standing order or the order of the House dated May 30, 2000 relating to Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 in relation to the construction industry, the order for third reading be discharged and that the bill be recommitted to the standing committee on justice and social policy;

That, pursuant to standing order 75(

c) the chair of the standing committee on justice and social policy shall establish a deadline for filing of amendments with the clerk of the committee; and

That the standing committee on justice and social policy shall be authorized to meet November 16, 2000 for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That the committee be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on that day until completion of clause-by-clause consideration; and

That, at 4:30 p.m. on the day designated for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill, and any amendments thereto. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the completion of clause-by-clause consideration, and not later than November 20, 2000. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on justice and social policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That, when the order for third reading is called, one sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, at the end of which time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That, the vote on third reading may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "Deferred Votes"; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Mr Stockwell has moved government notice of motion number 70. Mr Stockwell.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Another closure motion to shut down debate.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Are you just heckling at large?

Let's be clear: there is a difference between closure and time allocation. It may be somewhat inside baseball and technical, but there is.

Mr Agostino: Explain the difference, Chris.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I could explain the difference, but even if I did I'm not sure it would help.

Let's talk about Bill 69. In the last few weeks a few misconceptions have been placed in the broader public with respect to what Bill 69 does and doesn't do. If we move back to the original debate on Bill 69, we had to talk about the competitiveness issue and the competitiveness argument about the bill. There was some consensus within the industries-the construction industry and the union sector-that there was a competitiveness problem with respect to unions winning, gaining and completing construction work, and they were losing a large part of their market to non-union construction companies.

Obviously this was not boding well for the general contractors who work in the union side of things, but it was also not working very well for the subcontractors in the union side, as well as the unions themselves.

Many hiring halls across this province were having a very difficult time placing their workers, mostly men who work through the hiring halls, who were having a tough time finding work because a lot of the old work that was being done in those sectors was being usurped, removed or taken away by non-union construction companies. The simple fact of the matter was that union companies weren't maintaining competitiveness in their bidding process.

I travelled this province, talking about, investigating and hearing about the competitiveness issue. There was no doubt that in certain areas around this province like Sudbury, Hamilton, Windsor and Kingston, there were a lot of men on waiting lists but not very many working. The union came to me after the last election, as well as the generals and the subcontractors, hoping to see if they could have another round of negotiations in order to find a conclusion or a solution to the particular problem that was plaguing the construction industry.

I undertook to find the competitiveness issue, to at least determine whether there was a competitiveness issue and to try to find a resolution to this issue.

I will say that I think all the parties came to the table in good faith: the unions, the subcontractors and the general contractors. Those are the three sectors that are at play in this issue. I think they all came with honesty and integrity, and in good faith were prepared to try to negotiate some kind of conclusion to this issue, and it was to the benefit of all. Let's understand that if unionized general contractors don't win work, then the trickle effect is very clear. The subcontractors who are unionized don't get work and obviously the unions that supply the men to these jobs aren't working. So the industry was in a bit of a kerfuffle.

What seemed fairly apparent was that the general contractors were taking the position that they needed some kind of abolition of 1(4). Again, 1(4) is rather technical, inside baseball terminology, but 1(4) basically would allow general contractors to double-breast. "Double-breast" means they could run a union shop and a non-union shop, and they could bid whichever job they wanted with whichever company they chose to bid it with.

This was absolutely unacceptable to the unions. They believe that if you allow general contractors and subcontractors to run a union shop and a non-union shop, it wouldn't be long before they would just simply stop bidding the union shop for work because the non-union shop was more competitive and they wouldn't have to build in a more competitive system in order to bring work to the union side.

That was the position put forward by the general contractors and subcontractors.

Through the negotiations it seemed reasonable to me, considering the history and the decisions that have been taken in the past, that we should have a different look at this. But let's also understand another thing: a lot of these general contractors were in essence unionized through what I classify as a backdoor provision. They were never actually unionized through a vote of the rank-and-file employees. What happened was, they would sign working agreements with time-limited periods with unions where they would hire union workers.

One of those working agreements they were working in was in the late 1970s, and the general contractor signed a working agreement within Toronto for a very time-specific period with some mechanical and plumbing contractors.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board, in my opinion, made a decision that was unfair. I'm sure others will argue differently, but I think it was unfair. What they did was, they tied those general contractors, because they had signed a time-limited, site-specific union agreement, to unionization across the entire province of Ontario in perpetuity. In essence these general contractors, who have agreed to have hired union workers for a specific job for one year, now found that they couldn't hire anything but unions, all across the province of Ontario, forever.

So in actual fact, the union didn't go in and organize these general contractors; it got them certified through a decision or a backdoor approach at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Having said that, as reasoned and thoughtful as this government is, they understood that there were concerns with respect to the union movement about double-breasting. My position at the time was, at this point in time, considering the unionization, before you could even talk about abolishing subsection 1(4), which allows double-breasting, you should at least try and implement a plan or a program that will make the unions more competitive to see if they can get more work so you may not have to go to the point of actually abolishing 1(4). That's the backdrop.

The negotiations took a long time and they were very, very arduous. I've got to give credit again to all three parties; they negotiated in good faith. The agreed decision of the three parties at the end of the day was Bill 69. The generals weren't happy with it because it didn't do what they wanted it to do; the subcontractors weren't tremendously happy with it, nor were the unions. But it was a reasonable compromise to create a more competitive marketplace.

When Bill 69 was introduced, I had met on a number of occasions with those people involved in the union movement, and they endorsed Bill 69. I didn't just negotiate with six union representatives; I negotiated with a team of six or seven union reps as well as a backroom group of 40 or 45. That's why it always frustrates me to see Mr James Moffat sitting in the gallery on occasion decrying Bill 69, because Mr Moffat was one of those people who sat in the back room and endorsed the deal.

If he had any problems, my position at the time was, "Then bring them up and say them now, because once this bill goes forward it becomes very difficult to start tinkering with it because the three of you have agreed that this is the approach we're going to take." So we went out on public hearings. To my shock and dismay, people such as Mr Moffat and others decided that they maybe hadn't read their own membership well and they found that they were having trouble selling the deal to their own local membership. I can understand that. We should all understand that; we're all in politics.

We all understand that politically what you expect the reaction to be sometimes isn't, and there was a backlash in the local communities.

Not to break into the deal holus-bolus, but let me give you the reaction of local communities. The reaction was there was concern about the ability of subcontractors to bring workers with them to other communities. But that was agreed to in the negotiations: 66% of employees would either be brought with them or name-hired.

At the time, some of the union representation bailed. Flatly, in political vernacular, they folded like a cheap pup tent. And then they tried to spell off their inability to read their own membership by blaming the government. Frankly, I found that reprehensible at best. Maybe you could have gone back to your rank and file and said, "Look, I screwed up here. I committed us to something and I didn't realize you were so opposed to it. Maybe we'll go have a rethink of it." But they didn't do that.

What they claimed was that the deal we negotiated was somehow different from what was in Bill 69, and that is just not the fact. The flat-out fact is that Bill 69 is what people like James Moffat and others agreed to. They agreed to it. Now if something happened in the past that gave them trouble, as I said earlier, they should have come back and said, "We've got to renegotiate this.

I can't sell this to the membership." Maybe my reaction would have been, "I can't do it." But the way they attacked the problem was profoundly unfair, unfair to the general contractors, to the subcontractors, to the other people-the union brothers and sisters-who were with them negotiating the deal, and of course to the government. Because they then turned tail and ran. Quite honestly, to me that is the not the noble approach to take.

I understand their opposition, and frankly I understand the opposition of the member from Hamilton, Mr Christopherson. He's an NDP member, born and bred in the union movement. I understand how he'd have trouble with this. I don't profess that he would probably have any other position than he had. I'm a little dumbfounded by Mr Agostino's opposition, but I shouldn't be, I suppose. It's a cliché-driven argument that offers nothing in the way of salient criticism. It's just an argument that's cliché-driven, that offers no reasonable response to the bill that's before us.

Because the bill, regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with it, is going to create a more competitive workplace in certain parts of this province. Why? Let me explain it to you.

The construction industry is one of the few industries in this province that negotiates their collective agreements province-wide. With all collective agreements in the construction industry-whether you're a drywaller or an electrician or a plumber-you negotiate your rate province-wide. So once every three years they gather in Toronto and negotiate their collective agreement for what an electrician makes. This has been the standard approach for the last two or three decades.

There's an inherent flaw in that approach, and I don't think you have to be a union member or a non-union member to understand the inherent flaw. The inherent flaw is this: a value attached to work set down in Toronto may not be an applicable value in Windsor, North Bay, Timmins, Sudbury, Wawa or Ottawa. Because what you must accept-and I don't believe people will make this argument-is that in these different areas across the province the economy is different. The economy is different in the riding of my friend Mr Johnson than it is in my riding.

The economy is different in the opposition members' ridings than it is in my riding. So what was the case we were faced with? Simply, that if we continue on the approach that you do province-wide negotiating, then whatever rate is set in Toronto is going to be the rate paid everywhere else, and quite frankly contractors couldn't afford to pay those rates and win jobs in areas outside of the Toronto region.

And you know something? Everybody was in agreement with that-everybody. So that was the issue with respect to the competitiveness.

And what Bill 69 allowed-and this isn't breaking any traditional union credos, this isn't abolishing labour relations, this is not abolishing negotiation-all it says, is that you can still negotiate province-wide, but if there's an application by a local person to suggest that the rates are excessive and don't allow them to be competitive and don't allow anybody to work-general, sub or union-then we need to have negotiations locally, and the idea of the local negotiations would be that rather than paying-and I'm picking a number here-an electrician 28 bucks an hour, maybe in Sudbury we'll pay them 22 bucks an hour so the job's more competitively bid and we'll actually win the work.

Rather than having a hiring hall of 400 guys and 340 of them not working, we'll have 340 of them working instead of 340 not working. That's the thrust. It was never intended to take away any ability of the unions to represent their membership. It was never intended to take away their ability to negotiate collective agreements. It was never intended to take away their ability to call a general province-wide strike. All those issues were maintained in the body of Bill 69. So there are benefits and downsides.

Where the ship hit the shoal on this issue was the benefit that was going to be derived for the eight general contractors in Ontario. Part of the negotiation was-and this is as clear as clear can be. I don't believe anyone can suggest they didn't know this when they signed on to 69. It absolutely boggles my mind that anyone could claim they didn't know this was part of it, that the general contractors would be relieved of their union responsibilities acquired through those working agreements-and it's back to the first part of this argument I made-where they actually unionized them through the OLRB backdoor.

If any of those generals had been unionized normally through a process of carding the members and voting, they weren't going to lose that. They were only going to lose that process of unionization that they got through the backdoor at the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It didn't preclude the fact of the union going into that workplace and organizing them again. Sure you could. The only relief that was sought by the generals was to relieve them of the responsibility of those working agreements outside of board area 8 that were captured through the backdoor of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

That wasn't that unreasonable, in my opinion.

Furthermore, to hear some of those people, like I said before-what's his name? James Moffat-argue that this wasn't on the agenda is absolute hilarity. This is incredible, that people can stand bald-faced in front of you and say those kinds of things and they don't even twitch their eye or smirk their lips. Either they have done this so often they believe it or they've got a job ahead of them working in some casino.

So that was the thrust of the debate. As I said before, I understand the opposition from the opposition, and I understand their opposition to the bill, but I want to tell you, nowhere in the bill was it ever designed that we would allow double-breasting. Nowhere in the bill was it designed that we would allow related-employer provisions to proceed. Nowhere in the bill was it designed that we would take away collective bargaining rights. Nowhere in the bill was it designed that we would remove the right to strike.

We just developed a scenario that allowed for a more flexible negotiating process so people in different parts of this province could get work that they weren't getting today. That was the thrust of the bill. I find it deeply damaging to suggest that the bill was anything else.

The argument across the floor that I've heard ad nauseam, particularly from my friend for the Liberals, is that we put a gun to their head. The situation is simply this: a Legislative Assembly and a government have responsibilities. Obviously we always, always had the power to remove 1(4). If we had wanted to remove 1(4), we could have simply done it. Clearly, by not doing it, we understood the value of 1(4). The suggestion that we put a gun to their head is somewhat remiss, is somewhat overstated, because if we wanted to remove 1(4), we could have done it at any time we wanted, and we didn't.

It was fairly apparent we were looking for a compromise. I know it's a cliché-driven debate and maybe I'm wasting my time in talking to him because I know he's just going to bark out, "You put a gun against his head," but the fact is-

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Why are you so condescending?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I think it's because I need to be. Obviously there's just not a lot of understanding of this bill. Obviously, some of the members opposite haven't read it or understood it, because they go out into the public out there and tell people about this bill and they don't even have a simple working knowledge of the bill, including yourself. Sometimes you have to go slow for your benefit. That was the thrust of the bill.

Mr Christopherson: You're so arrogant.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I don't think so. I think the arrogance is for the member from Hamilton. I think he is because he's got to go out there and spew things when he doesn't know what he's talking about. Now if that isn't the height of arrogance, I don't know what is.

So that's the thrust of the bill.

There's another component to the bill as well. The other component is the residential framework to the bill. The residential framework to the bill is even better than the ICI side of the bill. We did the exact same thing again. We brought the parties together, the unions and the builders, which is something the NDP never would've thought of doing. We brought them together. We asked them to negotiate an agreement that would make the unions and the builders work together to come up with a plan that would remove the provision of the strikes within the industry.

If you remember back to 1998, the residential housing industry was plagued with five months, I think, of residential strikes that slowed down homebuilders. All those people who bought homes in the residential marketplace couldn't close because, in the residential marketplace, what happens is all the trades come up for negotiation at different periods of time. There are about 25 of them. The minute one trade ended up going on strike and then settling, the very next day the next trade would go on strike and they'd go for two weeks and settle. It was a domino effect. It worked out to such a large degree that five months passed before they could get all the unions to settle.

Everybody in that industry said: "This isn't good. It isn't working this way. We don't want to go out for five months because we are going out individually and nothing is being accomplished other than nobody is getting paid, nobody's building any homes and families aren't moving into them for five months." As part of this bill for Bill 69, we went to the residential component of the bill. We asked them, "Is there any way that we can address the issue with respect to the five-month strikes?"

The unions and the builders got together. They responded by reaching an all-party agreement to having a common expiry date of April 30. The unions agreed, the builders agreed on April 30. They've agreed. They would have an all-party agreement that, if you're going to go on strike, if you're going to have a collective agreement run out, they all have to run out on April 30. That was within the industry.

Both parties also agreed that rather than having a prolonged strike-these are progressive builders and progressive unions. These are people who understand the private sector economy and they negotiated this in good faith in the 21st century, not in some arcane backwater way that some of the NDP choose to negotiate or talk about how you negotiate collective agreements. These were progressive-thinking people. They decided that there would be a 46-day window for a strike or a lockout, ending June 15.

What the unions and builders said is: "Look, everybody's contract expires April 30. If you go out on strike, by June 15 you have to go back to work. What happens when you go back to work? You send the strikes and the disputes to binding arbitration."

Binding arbitration is very simple. The union puts in their request. The builders put in their request. One arbitrator decides which application he accepts. There's no negotiation; there's no argument; there's no nothing. The arbitrator sits there. He gets one from the union, one from the builders, and he says, "OK, which is the most reasonable?" It forces the parties to be reasonable, because if they're not reasonable in their submission, then the other party's going to win the day, which in my opinion has been very good.

They've agreed to it. They've said, "OK, let's try this particular dispute resolution system for this time and we will tell you if it works." We the government said, "Sure. This is an industry-led conclusion. This is an industry-led operation. Then, sure. This works. We will let you do it. If you want us to maintain this legislation, we will pass an order in the House to maintain it"-if it worked. So that was the issue.

There were other issues with respect to finding agreement between the two groups, but where the thing broke down and the reason we're back here and we have to go back to committee is that the unions agreed in the non-civil trades to get a majority of the non-civil trades to vote to allow the general contractors out of their working agreements, and that was the crunch. That was the crush of the bill. That was the benefit to the generals, that they be allowed out of their working agreements. So, as part of the bill, it was agreed that the non-civil trades would vote to allow the generals out of their working agreements outside of board area 8 or the GTA.

What happened at the end of the day? At the end of the day, this happened and this is why I find it somewhat frustrating: if the unions didn't know this was happening, why did they go out and try and get the non-civils to vote the generals out of their working agreements? Why did they bother? If this is what nobody agreed to, why did they do it? Why were some arguing after the fact, like Mr Moffat, that they shouldn't be allowing them out? If he's arguing they shouldn't have been allowing them out, how did he even know it was going to be there? How did he know that was part of the deal?

Did it just come to him one day? This was just some kind of oracle? An epiphany? It came to him one day that, oh, this is what's going to happen? He did that because he knew that was going to happen, because he was part of the negotiations.

That's what happened. Now we're stuck in a situation that if we want Bill 69 to go through, we have to refer it back to committee and do for the unions what they said they would do for themselves in order to make Bill 69 work. That, in a nutshell, is the brief history on this bill.

Let me tell you, though, there's another side. The other side is that we should just go ahead and abolish 1(4). There are definite benefits to doing that as well. There's no doubt about that. Right now, unions in the province, because union contractors don't have any way of negotiating, tend to hold the subcontractors up for ransom and force them to pay exorbitant amounts of money. They achieve these through the back door again at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

What the generals and subcontractors are saying, which again is a compelling argument, is, "Why should we be held hostage like no one is held hostage in this province? Why? Why should we not be allowed to operate a business that's union and operate a business that's non-union? What's the matter with that? It's supposed to be a free country. It's supposed to be a democracy. Why can't we do what anyone else in this province is allowed to do in any other industry?" It does seem fairly reasonable, because the general contractors that are supposed to be unionized don't hire anybody. They don't have any employees.

So if they do want to decertify, they can't because they have nobody to vote, but somehow they're unionized through this aberration at the Ontario Labour Relations Board. What's fair and equitable about that?

That was the issue at hand: how do we deal with this issue? I think we took a responsible approach-over the protestations across the floor. I'm not really sure why they were protesting so loudly, particularly the Liberals. I don't get it, frankly, because this is not unreasonable. This is a fair, reasonable compromise to a complicated issue.

I hear the member for Hamilton East cackling away again about some cliché-driven argument he'll make, I'm sure, that has something to do with a gun to the head, do the right thing and come clean, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the bottom line is simply this: it's a reasonable approach to take, because what it did do was it protected the union approach as far as related employer and double-breasting, but it also allowed those general and subcontractors to be more competitive around the province.

I don't know why they can't endorse it. They believe in opposition that you've just got to oppose. You just have to oppose.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): You were there.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I was there too and I voted in favour of some government initiatives. I think it's reasonable, if they have government initiatives that are reasonable, and this is one of them. The rationale here is that it's not fair. I keep wanting to hear, why isn't it fair? If you think having a union hall with 350 guys there not working is some kind of noble treatment of unionization, you're an absolute fool. If you think that works, you're crazy; it doesn't work. We've got study after study. I can show you example after example, union hall after union hall, where they're not working.

What you want to do is maintain their right not to work. What's the benefit of that? What does a deep-thinking, knowledgeable person say to that? "I want to maintain your right not to get a job." This is somehow a noble left-wing cause.

So this is what they have deemed to be their approach. Our approach has been, rather than simply allowing these union halls not to work, to create a negotiating process that allows them to be competitive so they can win work in their local community and actually be employed. Because I'll tell you, if you're getting $28 an hour and you're not working, it's got to be better to get $22 an hour and be working. That's the difference.

I'm going to turn it over to my friend from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford very shortly. I will just close by saying that the amendment that's going to go at committee is a very standard amendment. I don't believe it will be out of order. It is contained within the bill. It just will allow some opportunity for the government to pass regulations that will relieve the generals from their working agreements in those non-civil trades outside of board area 8, which is what the deal was all along.

I'm at a loss. I find the opposition to the bill somewhat passing strange. I think if people give this bill an opportunity to work, you'll find a far more competitive approach in this province, you'll find a more accepting worker, you'll find people more gainfully employed. Ultimately, at the end of the day, this bill is more beneficial to the union than it is to the non-union. Because if the union member is working, he's paying union dues, and if he's paying union dues, then obviously there's a strong and vibrant union movement. If the union member is