Hansard Transcript 1993-Oct-04 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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

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

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

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

DES ROWLAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

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

At the beginning of the workshop, all the participants took part in the sweetgrass ceremony, a native spiritual ceremony in which we gave our commitment to open communication and understanding.

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

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

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

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

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

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

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

APPRECIATION OF POLICE

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

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

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

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

1340

WOODSTOCK GENERAL HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

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

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

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

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

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

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

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

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

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

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

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMBULANCE SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

1350

Mrs McLeod: This is too serious an issue to simply play games with. The regulation says, as clearly as the printed word, "if in the opinion of the employer" it is to be a critical function. Minister, there can be only one interpretation of that by employers across this province, and that is that they are going to be left to pay for the costs that your social contract legislation imposes if they designate their employees as critical functions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

FOOD BANKS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will direct my second question on another critical issue to the Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier. You can have a preamble by looking at the bag which I'm sure is all too familiar to all of us. You will recognize it as the bag which will be distributed in Metropolitan Toronto this week to launch the food drive of the Daily Bread Food Bank.

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

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

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

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, in view of the fact that you allowed the leader of the official opposition to deal with the Minister of Health in her preamble, I assume that you'll allow me to do the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

1400

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

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

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Harris: Do you find that okay?

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

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

1410

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

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

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

Mr Harris: So you waited until today.

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

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

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

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

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

The Speaker: New question.

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

CASINO GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection: Things have changed.

Hon Ms Churley: As some of my colleagues are saying here, things have changed somewhat since this government came into power. I made it very clear last week, and I'll say it for your benefit again today, that I categorically deny that there has been any political interference in this whole process. In fact, I would go further and say that I believe that what the leader of the third party is doing is extremely irresponsible, because he is going on a memo that was leaked by a non-named person, a totally ridiculous memo that in fact has no basis in fact. I would go so far as to say it's an untruth. There's absolutely no basis in fact in that memo. It's very irresponsible to present that kind of memo as evidence, as though there's something gone wrong with the integrity of this process. It just isn't true. I would ask the leader of the third party to try to be more responsible in those kinds of accusations. I think the people of Windsor and the people of Ontario deserve better than that. This process has received compliments from all over the world and it's been looked at as a model for other jurisdictions to follow. The integrity of the process --

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

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

1420

LABOUR LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

HEALTH CARDS

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

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

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

What I can say to him in terms of the registration of individuals in this province for health cards is that registration began under the previous government in April 1990, to be completed in January 1991. After we became the government in October 1990, we engaged a consultant firm to conduct a post-implementation audit and develop reporting requirements for management of the database; that was completed in April 1991. Then in April 1991 we set up a unit responsible for registration identification. That was expanded, in May 1992, into the registration programs branch. When I became the minister, I prevailed upon my good friend the Minister of Environment and Energy to second to the Ministry of Health an investigator from MOEE's enforcement and investigations branch. They have now set up an investigative unit. We have put in place forensic accountants, as well as a toll-free hotline. The actions that have been taken to deal with misuse of our health cards have all been subsequent to October 1990.

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

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

WATER SUPPLY

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

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I appreciate the question from my colleague on behalf of his constituents. As he will know, proposals were in the works that would involve a number of municipalities, including the town of Wallaceburg, and subsequently Wallaceburg withdrew from the scheme. The ministry subsequently has completed a feasibility study which reviewed alternatives for the town of Dresden and the townships of Sombra, Chatham and Camden. There are three basic alternatives for water supply that have been identified and we are currently in the process of preparing a submission which will be sent to Management Board of Cabinet. As soon as that process is completed, we will be able to report back to the member and to his municipalities on which alternative we will be proceeding with.

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

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

1430

CASINO GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question I want to ask too is, if the city had such a major say in the location of the casino, why was it effectively ignored in terms of the operator? Don't stand in your place and tell me that you listened to them, because person for person, the people from the city of Windsor will say that you effectively ignored them when it came to the selection of the operator. I come back to my question: You ignored the city of Windsor and you ignored the fundamental premise of your government and your position prior to election. That was that you would not be going after working-class people and going after their dollars. Now we know from this document exactly what was indicated by members of your caucus --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question.

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

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

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

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

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

VITAL SERVICES FOR TENANTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1440

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

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

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

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

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

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

The announcement made on Monday was specifically with respect to the construction sector and municipal bus procurement. We moved from an area of multilateral negotiations on a whole wide range of issues. Those negotiations continue -- logging and trucking are part of those negotiations -- but we moved from there again to a bilateral table on the issue of construction and municipal bus. At that bilateral table and those bilateral negotiations we were unable to make significant progress and, as I have announced, we are now taking further steps. I hope the effect will be to wake Quebec up that we are serious with respect to these issues. We are taking specific retaliatory action in this narrow area. The area of logging and trucking will continue to be under discussion and negotiation at the multilateral tables.

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

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

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

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

CARE OF ALZHEIMER PATIENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

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

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

ONTARIO PLACE

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

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

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

My question is twofold: (1) Why was this secretly done and why were there no tender documents put out and why is it that you just had one party you negotiated the settlement with? (2) Why is this contract not open for the public to digest, and how come everything around this has been shrouded in secrecy and no one can know the deal, not just these people but the owners and operators at Ontario Place, the restaurateurs? Many people are concerned about this and they haven't got one single answer from your ministry.

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

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

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

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

1450

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

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

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HEALTH CARE

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

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

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

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

STABLE FUNDING

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

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

HEALTH CARE

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

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

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

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

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

I will sign the petition.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

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

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

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

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

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

ONTARIO HYDRO

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

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

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

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

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

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

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

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

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1500

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mr Mackenzie moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 80, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I confess that I've tried to find the section in our standing orders; I know it's here, but I haven't had time to find it. It has to do with us receiving a package of amendments on the bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orders of the day.

1510

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On page 32 of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, 37(c) says that, and I'll just read this: "On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics. If it is an amending bill, an up-to-date consolidation of the act or acts to be amended shall be delivered to the opposition critics unless the bill amends an act amended previously in the session."

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: On a new point of order?

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Elston: Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Stockwell: The proposed amendments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1520

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

Interjection.

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

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Nothing to do with it.

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

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

The building and construction trades department of the AFL-CIO, it doesn't count in NDP Ontario? The Canadian Federation of Labour, Jim McCambly, you don't talk to Jim? He's perplexed. He doesn't understand why you would do this. Shirley Carr? Don't tell me Shirley Carr is opposed to this legislation. Can you imagine? I had a pleasant conversation last week with Shirley. She raises an interesting spectre, and that is one of this government being taken to court under the international laws of the International Labour Organization because it appears that once you pass Bill 80 into law, you will be in contravention of several regulations under the ILO in Geneva, Switzerland. That's a fact. I don't know if you've looked at this, but this comes from the former head of the CLC.

Mrs Marland: One of their old friends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1530

Interjection

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

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

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

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

This is interesting. It says: "True national independence is a byproduct. It comes to a nation which seeks the greatest possible success...." Now, that's very relevant to this debate, because what this government should be talking about is seeking the greatest possible success for workers in the construction industry and not worrying about tinkering with their constitution. Where do you get off unilaterally changing the rules, in a democratic society, in a constitution that was adopted by the rank and file and by the membership of any union? Where do you get off? It's outrageous. It's anything but democratic. It is highly socialistic and it's wrong. You're doing it unilaterally without the concurrence of the groups.

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

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

In the speech, he goes on to say, "A century ago, the menace" -- we all see these great menaces; whether they're real or whether they're perceived, we all see these great problems out there -- "was Great Britain." This speech is several years old, by the way, October 1965. It's somewhat ironic how strongly it applies to October 1993. "A century ago the menace was Great Britain. Now it is the United States. To some Quebec residents, it seems we can toss in English-speaking Canada.... Might we not be wiser if, like the positive thinkers of a century ago, we concentrated instead upon the task of making Canadians more successful?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1540

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

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

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

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

Mr Mahoney: They say you have not. You see, there's a difference between sitting in a room and saying, "What do you want?" and sitting in a room and saying: "How can we help you? How can we work this out?" Sure, the initial cries were to scrap the bill, and I think they'd still like you to scrap the bill, but why won't you comply with a simple request to set up a committee to involve people from the internationals, to involve people from the locals -- duly elected, I might add -- to sit down with Jim Thomas or whoever you want to assign this to, to see if you can put out on the table -- you know what? I'd settle for this -- the five greatest problems that you've experienced not having Bill 80 in place, just five of them.

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

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

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

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Basketball.

Mr Mahoney: A basketball team is coming, thanks to David Peterson and others. It's a great place to come and these people are sort of the front line. I'm sure Oshawa's a tourist community to many. You've got people in that union in Oshawa, I say to the former mayor. The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, what's the wrong word there? Is it "international"? Is that what bugs you guys? Do you want to wrap yourself in some mythical flag? Maybe it is. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe you want to put a border up around the province completely, but remember one thing: When you put that border up around the province, it's not just on the American border; it's on the Quebec border; it's on the Manitoba border. It eliminates the ability for mobility that these people have enjoyed up to now. Think about it. Whether it's from Ottawa or Cornwall, whether it's the GTA or Niagara Falls, whether it's Windsor or Sarnia, wherever there are construction tradespeople in those communities, many of them will go south of the border.

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

Local 667 in Charleston, West Virginia, is requesting manpower from the Canadian local supplying manpower, Local 128 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. They give the port of entry, Buffalo, New York, and tell them they should use the Fort Erie bridge. This is not new. This goes on a lot. They're looking for 20 welders to work a day shift starting at 7 am, and 30 more to work a night shift starting at 5:30 pm. The job location is the Mitchell plant, Moundsville, West Virginia. They suggest that they report directly to the job site. Boilermakers will be screened prior to employment, welders must pass certain tests, etc, etc. They will work for the Minotte Contractors in Minotte Square, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, four 10-hour days, Monday through Thursday, six to eight weeks of employment and, listen to this, $18.90 an hour plus an additional dollar effective October 1. They pay mileage for these people to get there. There's a relationship there.

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

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

That's a hot-off-the-press job order for Canadian workers. If you pass Bill 80, we'll be in jeopardy. Will it automatically happen? No. There has to be a disaffiliation, there has to be a breakaway, there have to be debates, clearly, but you're putting in place a mechanism that bypasses the legitimate constitution of the International Boilermakers along with dozens of other trade unions. They don't understand why you're doing it. Who are you paying off this time? You paid them off in Bill 40. I don't know who it is. Maybe it's the same people.

1550

The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Ontario Council: They don't count in Bob Rae's Ontario. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: They don't count in Bob Rae's Ontario. The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry -- how do you get all that on a business card, goodness gracious? -- of the United States and Canada, Local 800 in Sudbury: What's wrong with Local 800 in Sudbury of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry going to work in Pittsburgh if the jobs are available there? Does it make you wonder?

I could just hear this. This would be a question in question period. Let's say it was the reverse. If Local 128 in Toronto sent out a job order for American boilermakers to Local 667 in Charleston, I think it would be front-page news. People would be yelling and screaming they were taking jobs away from Canadians. But clearly they've identified, in two shifts, a requirement to have these very highly skilled, highly trained welders. They need them on the job for six to eight weeks. They can't just train them in the States for a secondment of six to eight weeks, almost. That's what it is: It's like a secondment. "We're going to borrow your welders and we're going to use them and we're going to pay them $20 an hour plus mileage and expenses for them to get here." Sounds like a pretty good deal. Why in God's name would this government want to take that option away from highly skilled Canadian boilermakers? There must be a reason. Maybe we'll find it during this debate.

We've talked about the boilermakers. There's the International Union of Elevator Constructors. Now, the Sheet Metal Workers International: There are people on the other side of it. Local 30 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association is in support of Bill 80. Let's put all cards on the table. I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if they've actually gone to their rank and file, though. I don't know if they've sat down with their rank and file to understand the impact of Bill 80 and the fallout from Bill 80, whether it's mobility or whether it's amendments and changes to a constitution done so arbitrarily and in a mean-spirited way, the way this minister is doing it, I don't know if they've done that, but I think it should be stated that they've said they're supporting it, and yet the Sheet Metal Workers International Association is against the bill. So once again you've got a break in the family.

The sort of gist of my question to the Minister of Labour earlier today in question period was to say to him, "Stop causing a rift within the labour movement in the construction industry." There are some people who think the construction companies are the ones that are going to pay the price. Let me tell you, the construction companies, if they get caught up in the middle of a labour dispute, will find a way to go to a non-union shop and you will be doing a disservice to the union representatives who have supported this party in the past and helped this government get elected. You're even playing a game that risks the solidarity within the labour movement. They're fighting with one another over this. It's not just an American against a Canadian; it's a boilermaker against a boilermaker, a plumber against a plumber. In Bob Rae's Ontario, it's hard to understand.

Mr Bisson: Put your hand over your heart when you say that.

Mr Mahoney: Well, you can jest about this. If you guys have decided to write off the labour movement, then say so. Stand up and say you don't give a damn about the labour movement any more and you don't care about the men and women in the construction industry in Ontario. If you want to make a joke about it, you go ahead.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Cut out the self-righteousness.

Mr Mahoney: Well, it's not. I'm quite serious. You're smug. I can't believe your attitude.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Back to the bill.

Mr Mahoney: Sorry, Mr Speaker. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union is on record as being opposed to Bill 80.

Here we go again with another split in the labour family. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837 in Hamilton, in the Labour minister's own home town, is opposed to it. How does he even go out and shop in the community? How does he face his supporters, his past supporters, for bringing in legislation that they're upset about, that they're opposed to, that they want trashed?

The Quality Control Council of Canada is opposed. The International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers is opposed. The Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council is opposed. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 804, Kitchener, is opposed. I didn't make these up, folks.

The Canadian Federation of Labour, Jim McCambly, is opposed. Do you care about the CFL? They've got 15,000 sheet metal workers. They've got 2,500 electrical contractors. They've got 36,000 members of the International Union of Operating Engineers. The journeymen and apprentices -- the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry -- do you know how many of them there are? Forty thousand of them.

The CFL is opposed: 3,400 in the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers; 14,000 in the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers; 16,000 in the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades; 12,000 in the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen; 70,000 in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

You guys are toast if these people decide to vote against you. I've got a feeling, from the conversations and from the mounds of documentation that I've received just on Bill 80, anything you gained in the labour movement by bringing in Bill 40 is down the Suwannee, folks. It's history. There are 2,200 in the Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association of the United States and Canada; 1,000 in the Canadian Office Employees Union. In Manitoba, 1,300 health care professionals are members of the Canadian Federation of Labour.

I understand that the CFL does not have the clout and the power and the political weight that the Canadian Labour Congress has with the NDP. I understand that, and I guess if you stood up here and read a list of the membership in the CLC, it would far surpass the poor, lowly little CFL. But the thing that's interesting is that it's the construction unions that make up a huge portion of the membership in the CFL.

I asked Joe and I asked Pat and I asked a number of these people -- it's nice to see the minister is now talking to them. It's a little late, Minister; the bill's on the floor. I hope you guys are having a good conversation now. Bob's up there saying, "What did we do wrong?" It's nice that he's gone and at least taken my advice to talk to them. Maybe it's some of these amendments they're prepared to accept; I don't know.

Is this all a game? Are we just pawns being fooled around with? I don't think so. I saw the passion this morning in the press conference of the people who were there from the construction unions. They're scared of you guys now. I don't think it's a game at all. It's a game to you. You sort of weigh, "How can we get away with this; who are we paying back?" and you just go ahead and steamroller it.

Let me just share some things with you, Mr Speaker, that show the depth of the concern. I've got so much, it's hard to know which one to begin with. Here's one from the IBEW. This is addressed to the Premier from Jerry Wilson, business manager, financial secretary, IBEW Local 804.

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your new post as our Deputy Speaker. It's nice to see you in the chair. I'm sure you'll bring some dignity and class to that particular position. You have a great history and tradition to follow in. Now, be nice to me.

Mr Bisson: Stop sucking up, Steve.

Mr Mahoney: I've got to. The last guy wasn't nice to me. She's going to be nice to me.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): He's out of order, there.

Mr Mahoney: It's out of order for me to congratulate the Speaker? Geez, you don't even like the Speaker around here. Give me a break.

This letter says:

"Dear Mr Premier:

"It puzzles me why such anti-labour legislation would have such a high priority when your government has so many other more important challenges to deal with."

1600

This is Jerry Wilson -- there it is, folks, business manager. He sent Bob Mackenzie a copy of it -- really raises an interesting point. You'll recall, in the summer, that document that was leaked to Steven Offer, the member for Mississauga North, and showed the government agenda and what was being proposed in the fall.

Bill 80 was on that. I admit that. Bill 80 was on that. You know what wasn't on that? Jerry raises this very valid point: workers' compensation. I don't understand why we're here debating second reading of Bill 80 when what we should be doing is looking at a piece of legislation and giving it first, second and third reading to reform workers' compensation.

Would the Minister of Labour please get his priorities straight? Would he not recognize and understand that there are injured workers in the construction trades, in the auto industry, in the steel industry, in small business all over this province, who can't get satisfactory service out of a Workers' Compensation Board gone mad? But it's not important. You'd rather deal with Bill 80 than look at real, solid ways to reform workers' compensation.

We had them before a committee. There were a lot of questions asked, not the least of which -- the minister wished I had asked him a question in the House because I guess he was going to try to hit it out of the park. He wanted me to ask him a question in the House about why workers' compensation bought a flooring system from the United States. Instead of attacking international unions, why don't you attack cross-border shopping by your own government agency headed by a former member of your caucus?

Isn't that something that should be high on the list? Isn't that something you should care about? On top of the fact that they cross-border-shopped for a flooring system that was manufactured right here in Oakville and they bought an American flooring system, they paid half a million dollars more money.

Odoardo Di Santo, the chairman of workers' comp said to me -- and it's in Hansard -- in that committee, "It's not taxpayers' money." Imagine that; it's not taxpayers' money. The small businesses who support workers' comp are not taxpayers? When you have a system that is legislated in place where the business has no option but to provide workers' compensation; it's mandated by law; you don't call that a tax? What do you want to call it? You want to call it a premium.

If it were just a premium, you would allow the business community to go out and buy from competitive insurers the workers' compensation coverage that would be required under the act. See, I don't have a problem with it being required; it should be required. We must take care of our injured workers in this province, but we're not doing it. Instead of dealing with something that would resolve the concerns of the injured workers, ask any one, I say to the Minister of Labour, of your members in your backbench, any one of the Tory members, anybody in my caucus, what the number one issue is in their riding constituency offices every day, every week, every month and has been for years: workers' compensation; not international unions, not Bill 80, not even Bill 40; workers' compensation, job one, followed closely by SCOE, support and custody problems. But the number one issue is workers' compensation.

Here we are in the fresh beginnings of a new sitting of the Legislature, an opportunity, I would've thought, to put some of the acrimony we've all seen and felt and heard in this place behind us and move into issues that, generally speaking, I think the government would concur with, and that is, there need to be changes in workers' compensation.

Brian King, I believe, would agree with that, that there should be changes in workers' compensation. I might add, Minister, that under some duress and perhaps some stress in questioning, he brought some very good answers to that committee and, I think, at least attempted -- even though I didn't agree with everything he was saying -- to satisfy the concerns of committee members, both in the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. I congratulate him for that. He knows I don't agree with some of his ideas. He knows that I consider him to be an appointee of the Premier, along with his boss -- I assume his boss -- Mr Di Santo, but at least he recognizes that the system is broke.

There is an old, old question in government: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Here we got one that ain't broke and you're trying to fix it, and we've got one that is broke and you won't even put it on the table. What is it you're afraid of?

We're all complicit in the problems at Workers' Compensation. No one party, you'll be delighted to know, is responsible for that. The Conservatives made a mess of it, we created some problems and didn't clean it up, and you guys are just sitting there fiddling while Rome burns. I don't understand it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret Harrington): Would the member return to Bill 80.

Mr Mahoney: Well, it is, because the question is, if you won't deal with the issues of concern -- I mean, this is on Bill 80, this letter that I'm reading from Jerry Wilson:

"It puzzles me why such anti-labour legislation would have such a high priority when your government has so many other more important challenges to deal with."

So it is directly Bill 80. We should be scrapping Bill 80 today, as well supporting the fact that the minister slaps amendments on our table 10 minutes before it's time to speak. I don't know what these amendments say. You can't even understand them. They're written by the bureaucrats over in the Whitney Block somewhere or in the Ministry of Labour, and you've got to have an opportunity to analyse them and understand them. Even the bureaucrats know that.

So we should be scrapping Bill 80, saying to the construction unions: "We want to sit down with you now. We hear your concern. We hear your anger and we want to set up a committee."

We don't need a royal commission on this one, Minister, let me assure you. I don't happen to think we need royal commissions at all. I think they're expensive: three million bucks for your John Sewell commission. It's going to be three million bucks for the education commission. Automatically, zero to $3 million in 60 seconds, the minute you set something like that up.

I don't think we need that here. I think we need to sit down and say, "What are the problems," identify the problems, identify the people involved, identify the unions involved -- let me tell you, if some parent American international union is riding into town, putting the boots to one of our locals, then I'd be upset about that. I'd say to Bob Rae, I'd say to Bob Mackenzie -- I'd be the first one to jump up in this place and demand that you put a stop to that kind of abuse. But I can't get examples out of you. Maybe some of your speakers will give me some. I can't get any examples. Put the problems on the table; sit down as mature, democratically elected representatives of the Boilermakers, of the Building and Construction Trades Department, of the Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council, of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ottawa, Hull and District, of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario.

Madam Speaker, the Labourers' International Union of North America: "Bill 80 interferes with building trade unions' ability to govern themselves democratically. Bill 80 interferes with union constitutions and bylaws."

That's not just some opposition blowing wind; that's from the Labourers' International Union of North America. There it is on their letterhead, signed by Joe Mancinelli, manager, central Canada subregion.

Don't you listen to these people? Maybe we have to rethink what's going on. You guys, since you got elected, you've become Tories. It's hard for us to understand in the Liberal caucus. We never know. There's a ventriloquist in the room sometimes, and then the leader of the third party stands up and goes on about his new-found friends in the labour movement, his new-found brothers and sisters who are turning to him. I think he exaggerates a bit.

But the fact of the matter is that these people who used to be your constituents have nowhere to go any more. They have no one to talk to. So they're doing the only thing you can do in a democratic society: They're holding press conferences; they're denouncing the government; they're creating demonstrations; they're meeting and talking with opposition politicians; they're briefing caucuses. They're saying: "The government won't listen to us. Will you?"

1610

We analysed this and said, "You know, we don't want to get involved in internal bickering within unions. It's a messy business." I remember full well. I was there when the Steelworkers raided Mine, Mill in Sudbury. Talk about a messy business. That was not only messy, it was violent in those days, and there's still some anger in Sudbury. Witness the emergence in the mines of the CAW. It's funny how Bob White keeps coming up in all this stuff. I don't know; I guess Jesse Jackson likes him. He must be a really powerful guy, because his name just keeps coming up, coming up, everywhere you look. I know it's Buzz Hargrove, but I've got a feeling Bob just might have sort of a little in, in the CAW that he created.

I congratulate him, you know that? I think he's established a relationship between the CAW and his American counterpart that is a model that could be followed with an industrialized union where you can identify the workplace, where you can identify the product, where you can identify the skills that are required virtually on an ongoing basis, totally, completely unlike the construction industry.

That brings up a point. The Steelworkers have had the right -- I'm losing the voice here; I know that would make some of you happy -- to disaffiliate. Minister Mackenzie would know that. They've had the right to disaffiliate. Is the problem here one of the big, bad American picking on the little Canadian? Let me tell you about the Steelworkers. Who's the president internationally of the United Steelworkers of America, a fine fellow too? A man named Lynn Williams. What nationality is he? Guess. Canadian. Interesting.

When does Leo Gerard go to Pittsburgh as the new secretary? First of the year? Former national director of the United Steelworkers. Now we're going to have two hotshots in the top hierarchy of the American Pittsburgh headquarters for the United Steelworkers of America, both of whom are Canadian citizens. Well, I think that's great, and especially when you've got to get elected to those jobs. That's not an easy thing. It must tell you something about the competency and the integrity of a guy named Lynn Williams. And while I find it hard to say, it probably says something about the competency at least, if not the integrity, of my friend Leo. I can tell you that Lynn is very well respected in the international community, and so he should be.

I'll tell you, on a personal note, that years ago when my dad was in a home and was quite ill, the Steelworkers cut off his benefits. They put my mother in a terrible position, and it was like dealing with government to try to get it resolved. My mom and my brothers and everybody tried going through the local office. The bottom line was that here they were cutting off a former national director for 23, 24 or 25 years, a vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress. They were cutting him off of the benefits while he laid in a home, in a bed, putting his wife to the trouble of having to pay a substantial amount of money.

I was just a city councillor in Mississauga at the time, and I remember writing a fairly impassioned letter directly to Lynn Williams. I had met him years ago as a young boy but had never talked to him beyond that, and I told him the story. Within two weeks Lynn Williams came back, restored full benefits for my father and paid the difference of the money that was not paid for his care, because they recognized that there was something that just fell through the cracks. They did the decent thing, and they didn't have to. Lynn had to bend the rules a little bit to get that taken care of.

I would bet that just about anybody in the labour movement would have applauded that decision by Lynn Williams, regardless of who it was. There was a serious problem in a social safety net that fell through the cracks, and they recognized it and they resolved the problem. I thanked Lynn and my mother did, and I thank him again publicly for the terrific work he did on behalf of my family. I appreciated that.

Here is a Canadian who is running one of the largest labour organizations in the world, and we're worried about the relationship between an international union and the construction industry?

I go back to the speech earlier, the comment that independence does not precede success. What do you need to do? You talk about priorities. Many of these letters talk about priorities. What do you need to do to help the construction unions? You could announce some kind of job program, I guess. You could work with industry to find some opportunities to create jobs. You could help them in the relationship with the international in smoothing any problems they might run into as they cross the border. You understand that one of the things an international union provides for these construction workers is a green card. Imagine that.

There are lotteries every year. There are people who would kill to get a green card, because they want out of Ontario because of what your government is doing in driving our taxes up, driving our deficit through the roof and bankrupting the future of the province. They want out. They can't get green cards. They can't get them.

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): That's not true. That's not right.

Mr Mahoney: Well, that is right. It's right on the work order, the job order for Canadians. It tells them right here where they report and how they'll be screened: "Everyone that enters the US at the port of entry will receive an I-94 form" -- I always thought that was a highway -- "with the H2B classification. This will be their official document to legally work in the United States. Canadian boilermakers that have not worked in the US before will have to show this document in order to receive a US social security number."

Imagine that. For a six- to eight-week posting, they even give them, temporarily, a US social security number. They give them a green card, which allows them to work there. You want to stop that? You want to jeopardize that? I don't understand. Are you so anti-American that you can't see the forest for the trees? Do you not recognize the relationship that the two unions, the international and the local here in Ontario, have developed and how positive it is? You're jeopardizing it within Canada as well.

To move to other provinces, just follow the example of that worker I talked about in Kenora earlier, who wants to go to Winnipeg to a construction job, presumably because the skilled trade that's required in Winnipeg is not available in Winnipeg or in Manitoba. That clearly happens in the construction industry. There are people who are highly skilled in certain areas in the Toronto area, others who are highly skilled in other areas in Pittsburgh or in Winnipeg or in Sault Ste Marie. Everything doesn't fit into little boxes, into little slots the way the socialist mentality would have it happen: "You will be here, and you will do this job. You will be here, and you will do that job."

That's what freedom is all about. You talk in terms of Bill 80 providing more freedom. The reality is that it has the very serious potential to damage the mobility of people in the construction unions. If you would just stop it, please, on behalf of the unions, stop it, sit down with them and say: "What are your real problems? Why is it you've got Elizabeth Witmer and Steve Mahoney all upset about this stuff? What did we do wrong?"

I don't think you'd be penalized for that. In fact, I know for a fact you wouldn't. People would say: "Boy, that government has gotten a little mature. As bad as they've been, with all of their scandals and their incompetence and their inability to do anything to get the economy moving, to create construction jobs, as bad as they've been, they're finally awake and they're willing to sit down with people in the construction unions and talk to them about these problems."

1620

I just don't understand why that's such a bad thing, except that somebody in either the corner room or -- maybe Bob Rae made a commitment during an election or something like that. He's done so many things wrong that he's got everybody bailing out on him, so angry, so upset, whether it's the municipalities, whether it's the ambulance drivers, whether it's the police, whether it's the firefighters' union.

Firefighters' unions have traditionally, many of them, supported the NDP. I can tell you that they're not going to do it this time. They're very disillusioned. They can't get an answer. I won't be surprised at all. Trust me. You guys may be surprised if you think you're going to corral any support from the trade labour movement outside of a few of the staunch, usually elected in high places, members of the NDP. You see, that's the big difference between today's political society around democratic socialism and the way it used to be in the 1950s and 1960s.

You had a few members like Jean-Claude Parrot and others in the labour movement who were strong card-carrying members of the NDP. You used to have a little bit of that, but by and large, union leaders understood -- and in my view, they are personified by the leadership in the construction union with whom I have met in the last couple of months. They understand that the pragmatics of union politics mean you've got to have some concern for the company, that you've got to have some concern for the project.

I believe that the men and women, but mostly men, in the construction trades are proud of what they do. When they leave a job site at the end of the day or at the end of the project, they can stand back and actually -- you know, it's a great feeling. Not being very handy with a screwdriver and a hammer myself, but having learned out of necessity in raising a family how to do a few things, it's a great feeling when, at the end of the day, you can look at the little cupboard the TV sits on -- and pray it doesn't collapse -- and know that you built it.

Imagine how these people must feel when they build a huge building, when they build a bridge, when they work on an ironworks project. It must give a tremendous sense of satisfaction to each and every one of them who work in the business. I believe they care about the quality of the project, and they care that the company that is building it, whether it's the general contractor or a subcontractor or whoever it is -- they know they've got to keep those guys in business somehow so they can keep their jobs, Norm, and you know it too.

But I don't think the government knows it. I think the government thinks you can just package everything up into neat little socialistic pieces of legislation and jam them down people's throats with absolutely no regard for the impact -- or somebody's stupid, and I don't believe that. I believe there's got to be, collectively at least, enough brains within the government to figure out when something is going to cause a serious problem. I believe you must have analysed the impact on mobility, although I have talked to some members opposite and they had never thought of it before. But surely to goodness the minister has analysed the impact on mobility. Surely that's happened.

I would hate to think that we would be going through a piece of labour legislation that will and may and can directly change the mobility of everybody who works in the construction industry in unions. I would hope to goodness -- well, I know Jim Thomas, the deputy, must have looked at this, and if he did, I'm sure he told Bob Mackenzie, the minister. Somebody's got to understand this. But you just ignore it; it really is difficult to understand why you would do that.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Ken Woods. Everybody know Ken? Good guy, right? He writes to Mr Abel. He says, "I am appalled at the statement in the third paragraph of yours of November 26; wherein you state, 'Ministry of Labour staff has extensively consulted with the bipartite construction industry advisory board and...unions.'"

I'm glad you're here, Don. This is a letter to you.

Mr Abel: I read it.

Mr Mahoney: "Sir, as a member of the Premier's construction industry advisory board I can assure you there was no consultation with that board whatsoever, let alone 'extensive consultation' on Bill 80." Is Ken Woods a liar?

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): How could you say that?

Mr Mahoney: He is? Is that what you said? Somebody said -- oh, was that a grunt? You're excused.

Is Ken Woods a liar? I don't know. I didn't make this up.

Mr Abel: Did you get my letters?

Mr Mahoney: He sent a copy to my leader. If you read your letter, it's copied to Premier Bob Rae, Bob Mackenzie, Lyn McLeod, Mike Harris and all Liberal members of the Legislative Assembly, so it came on my desk. Shouldn't I get a letter like that? That's a letter from a public official in the union industry to a public official in the Legislature. He says there has been no consultation whatsoever.

I don't know. I guess I would go to my minister, if I were sitting in your shoes. I don't mean to pick on you. This is the minister's fault, not yours, but clearly he's responding to a letter that you wrote him and he says your facts are wrong, that there was no consultation.

Answer my question: Is this man a liar? He put it in writing. I don't think he is; I think he's telling the truth. I think what you do is develop sort of a model of consultation. You think you go out to consult and consult, but what you really do is insult and insult. You insult their integrity. You insult their intelligence. You insult the democratic process that says we should work together to build legislation: "If there's a problem, put it on the table. Tell us what it is. We'll help you correct it. The union membership will help you correct it if there's a problem."

It's truly incredible that a government -- and let me tell you something else. I hope I can find this in this pile of documentation I have, because I have a little note in here from Shirley Carr. It's around somewhere; it'll show up when I don't need it. It's a little note from Shirley Carr in which Shirley expresses the concern, as I mentioned earlier, about the fact that you may be flying in the face of some international conventions of the International Labour Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. Shirley points out in her note to me that they can't challenge that until the law is enacted. So there's nothing they can do. They can warn you, they can talk to you, they can implore you, they can beg you, they can demonstrate, they can give speeches, they can do all of those things, but they can't actually challenge a piece of legislation under ILO conventions until it becomes law.

So what you're going to be heading for is that not only are you being unfair to the unions on the construction side, in the construction industry; you're being unfair to the taxpayer, because after you pass this there are going to be challenges filed with the International Labour Organization in Geneva calling your government to task, saying you have violated those conventions.

Could it be possible that a socialist government -- I don't even call you a labour government any more. That's what you used to be when you got elected. You were seen as a labour government. It's over. The honeymoon's over. Kimble, get a fast car because, buddy, you're gone. You're not a labour government any more. You're a socialist government, you're dogmatic, you're a little more conservative than I ever could have imagined you could be and you're hurting the people who thought you were their friends.

To a former organizer for the United Steelworkers -- and I don't say this as a personal shot, because I'm criticizing your legislation and your process, which is my job. The unions, as I said to you, Minister, in this House in question period, thought that when you got re-elected as part of an NDP majority government, I know they just said: "Oh boy, here we go. Now we've got a friend in Queen's Park." That's what they thought. You delivered Bill 40 to them and that's what they thought.

1630

Well, let me tell you something: If you're such a good pal, why don't you make Bill 80 apply to all unions? Why are you singling out the construction trades? I think the critic for the third party asked that question last week and couldn't get an answer out of the minister. If it's good for the electrical workers, is it good for the steelworkers? If it's good for the boilermakers, is it good for the auto workers? Why? I don't know.

Something kind of stinks when I look at the fact that here comes that name again, Bob White, when I look at the fact that the construction guys are not affiliated with the CLC or the OFL, but rather they go their own way with the CFL. Maybe I'm being too cynical. Maybe I should realize that these knights in shining armour on white horses wouldn't do such a terrible thing to all of those people in the construction industry. Maybe I'll try not to be so cynical, but I'll tell you, there's a smell that permeates, that's coming out.

I keep looking for an answer to the question why and every time I go around the circle and I discuss it and I meet with the union guys and I analyse it and the staff in research develop papers on it and we do the pros and the cons, because out of all the bills, outside of Bill 40, that I've been involved with in this place I've never seen such extensive analysis and such extensive reporting done as I have on Bill 80. It's because you look at it on the surface and you go, "What's wrong with giving our local guys a little more clout and a little more say in their business affairs?"

Why are they doing that? Are they answering a problem? Was there some jeopardy somewhere? Did somebody get put into trusteeship? Was some union business agent booted out of office unjustifiably? Have there been some strong-arm tactics by some international parent? Are they not getting their fair share of jobs? Are Canadian workers getting shortchanged because an international is bringing Buffalo workers into Toronto? I'd love to hear if that's the case.

You know what? I'd stand shoulder to shoulder beside you if you could give an example. Give an example. Don't laugh about it. Tell me that those things are happening. There's nobody on either side of this Legislature who would not want to stop that kind of abuse. But we can't get examples. Instead, we get unilaterally drafted, singularly disgusting attempts to ignore the constitution of a duly elected body. This part of it is really quite simple. I don't care if you're organizing a Little League baseball league, a ratepayers' group, a union, a company or any kind of association; you establish rules and those rules are basically called your constitution and you appoint certain people in certain positions and away you go, you start operating. That's what these unions have done. They have a duly passed constitution, a constitution that's supported, that includes an international parent, that allows for that international parent to find them work south of the border and in other parts of Canada. And it's working, but you decide you've got to fix it.

I find it incredible that this government comes along and all it wants to do is do paybacks or tinker around with problems in the labour movement when it should just help them get jobs, help them get more projects. It doesn't matter who it is. Help them build more cars. Do something to turn consumer confidence around. You gave $1 million down in Cambridge and the company put in $30 million and how many jobs did it create? Fifty?

Interjection: Fifty-five.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, 55, I'm sorry; $31 million for 55 jobs. I'll tell you, I've got to congratulate you for that one. That's just a kicker. Let me tell you, everybody in the province is now running out to buy a new car. Everyone's so excited about the positive news this government has put out and about the positive impact you've given the consumers that they're going to loosen the chains on their wallets and they're going to start spending -- not.

Mr Abel: Don't downplay that.

Mr Mahoney: Well, they're not doing it. If that's the best you can do, then let's go to the people and find out how they want someone else to do things, but I doubt very much if you've got the courage to do that.

Instead of tinkering with labour laws and interfering with duly elected representatives in duly passed constitutions, why don't you do something about consumer confidence? Why don't you send some messages out to small business that you want to help them get started in new ideas? Why don't you get serious about training and readjustment programs instead of standing up and putting fancy titles on it and not delivering any jobs to the marketplace?

There are so many things you could be doing. Why don't you reform workers' compensation? That alone would send a message to the private sector, to small business, to the injured workers, to everybody involved in industry, that this government really does care about some of the problems that exist in industrialized Ontario.

Mr Abel: We do, and you know it.

Mr Mahoney: Well, why don't you do something about it? You have an opportunity to bring in reforms to a system that is in rot in workers' compensation, and instead you bring in Bill 80.

Here's a letter from Pat Dillon. We all know Pat, eh, everybody over there? The minister knows Patrick. Maybe he's just kidding me in this letter; I don't know. It's a letter addressed to Joe Maloney and it's from Pat Dillon. For the public, he's the president of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. He says:

"As president of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, please accept my disappointment in not being available to attend this morning's press conference. The position of the provincial building trades council" -- Minister, maybe you didn't hear this from Pat, so I'd like you to hear it from me -- "during our last convention was of total opposition towards Bill 80. At this same convention, the delegates gave me the authority to negotiate with the Minister of Labour amendments to Bill 80 that would be acceptable to the workers of Ontario that we represent."

Could they be the amendments that the minister floated by my desk about 10 minutes before this debate? I don't know. Maybe the critic for the Conservative Party has had a chance to read them and find out; I don't know if they are or not. I've been instructed through points of order to the Chair that we're not allowed to talk about your amendments; that the courtesy you did of springing them on us with 10 minutes to go before the debate was indeed not a courtesy, may have in fact been out of order and at best was shoddy treatment of opposition critics, who have a responsibility to take the time to study amendments like that and to research their impact. But I don't know; is that the deal that you cooked with Patrick Dillon? Maybe you did; maybe you didn't. Maybe Joe knows. Are those the deals? I don't know. But here they are; here are the amendments.

Here he goes. He says: "However, in the only meeting" -- here's your consultation, Minister, that you're so proud of -- "of consultation we had with the Minister of Labour since our convention, it is my personal opinion" -- this is hard to read. This is hard for the president of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council saying this about an NDP member, never mind the Minister of Labour -- "that the minister is more committed to passing his personal political agenda, Bill 80, than he is of truly listening to the concerns of the majority of unionized construction workers as expressed through our convention and by duly elected officials of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario."

Mr Abel: That's not what the proponents of Bill 80 say.

Mr Mahoney: I don't have any letters from proponents of Bill 80. Maybe that should tell you something.

Mr Abel: I have some.

Mr Mahoney: Well, you can get up and read them if you like. This is Patrick Dillon, Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, the president. I have to assume there are proponents of Bill 80. I hope this wasn't some cockamamy thing you guys dreamed up at one of your caucus retreats when you were trying to figure out how to get on with governing this province, so I would hope that we're going to hear from somebody who supports this bill. I haven't.

Mr Abel: I have.

Mr Mahoney: Well, I haven't; there's nothing here. I wonder if you've heard from these guys. Is Patrick Dillon a liar?

Mr Abel: This is not a game.

Mr Mahoney: Well, is he? I'm asking you.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Totally uncalled-for comment.

1640

Mr Mahoney: What? I'm asking you a question. Is Patrick Dillon a liar? I don't think he is. You're saying that you've done all this consultation, Minister. You're saying you've done all of this. Patrick Dillon says you haven't. Which one of you is telling the truth? He put it in writing. You don't like that? Tough. I'm sure you don't like it. I wouldn't like it if my constituents started writing letters disputing everything I said and sending copies to members of the government so you could stand up and embarrass me. I would not like that, I can assure you. I would not like it, I've got to tell you.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I can appreciate how the Minister of Labour now is being boosted by the minister of elevators. You should be concerned too, Minister, because there are members of the elevator union who are involved in this, who have written, somewhere in all of this -- look at all of this stuff -- a letter from those guys saying they don't like Bill 80 either. Maybe they haven't talked to Marilyn Churley, the minister. I don't know. You guys are going to get a chance.

The minister could have stood up in his opening remarks and he could have read a retraction by Patrick Dillon and I would not have had to read the statement in here that Patrick makes about the minister.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Did he force you to read that letter?

Mr Mahoney: No, he didn't force me; not at all. But why wouldn't I read the letter? By the way, it's dated October 4. Imagine that. This is not an old one. Let me be clear: This is not one that the minister could stand up and say, "Well, just a minute now, I've got a retraction," unless it's on your desk now. This is dated October 4, 1993. What's the date today? I think it's October 4 -- still warm, that paper; still warm.

The Millwright District Council of Ontario comprises eight millwright local unions throughout the province, all of which, including the council, are affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, another international affiliation. On July 16, 1992 -- this is dated September 24, just last week; the paper has cooled off but it's pretty current -- this council addressed a communication to the Honourable Robert Mackenzie, Minister of Labour for the province of Ontario, condemning Bill 80 in its entirety. That's not mealy-mouthed. That's not like, "Gosh, golly, we don't like a couple of the things in there." They condemned the entire piece of legislation.

There it is. It's signed by Harry Carruthers. Is Harry telling the truth, folks? What do you think? I think he is. It's not very old. He says, "Our membership has found no reason to change its opinion in the past 14 months. We still condemn this bill.

"Harry Carruthers,

"Secretary-Treasurer,

"Millwright District Council of Ontario."

Here we have, "All members of the Legislative Assembly"; you would all have received this from the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, signed by Joseph Maloney, assistant to the executive secretary, joining us in this debate today. He says here, "Delegates to the three federations that represent construction workers in Ontario," -- I think he'd be the first guy to say that he used to think you represented them. But you don't represent them any more. You've bailed out on them. You've told them to go on their own -- "namely, the national Building and Construction Trades Department, the Ontario Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council and the Canadian Federation of Labour, Ontario Council, have officially opposed Bill 80 through convention action."

The regional Building Trades Council has gone on record as opposing this legislation. "Thirteen out of 15 bargaining agencies, representing 85%" -- if this doesn't get you guys, I don't know what does -- "of construction workers in Ontario, have also gone on record as opposing Bill 80. On behalf of the national building trades, I urge you to please give this consideration when making your decision."

It's to you he's talking. He wants some of you to vote against the government on Bill 80. You won't bring the government down. It won't be a confidence motion. You'll be able to support the men and women in the trade union movement in construction by telling Bob Mackenzie, "No way to Bill 80," if you've got the guts to do it. You won't get in cabinet if you do it, but you haven't got that much longer to be here, so cabinet: I wouldn't worry about it. I think your day is done. So you've got a chance. Think of this: A lot of these guys in the union movement control jobs; a lot of them control economies; they control organizations. Just maybe some of you, if you've got the guts to vote against this man and his bill, can get a job with him; maybe.

They're asking you in this letter, based on the support of 85% of construction workers in Ontario, to vote against Bill 80. Once again I say to you, you will not defeat the government. You might end up getting the Labour minister changed. It's clearly an opportunity for you to say: "Well, labour movement, we're sorry for all of this nonsense. We're sorry for all the heartache we've caused you. We want your union dues coming back to us to help support us in the next election. We might want a job if we don't make it in the next election. We're going to vote against Bill 80 because we think it's wrong."

There's only one or two of you who've got the courage to do that that I've seen so far, but maybe there's more.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member please address the Chair.

Mr Mahoney: Madam Speaker, maybe there's more, so there's some hope. This is a plea from Joe Maloney and it says: "Construction workers" -- this is so important, Minister of Labour, minister of unemployment -- "in Ontario want jobs, not Bill 80. Let's work together to make this happen." Oh, I know, doesn't that just bring a tear to your little eye and a lump to your throat?

That's Joe Maloney saying that, folks. They want jobs. They don't want Bill 80. They don't want you messing in their constitutions. They don't want you telling them how to do business. They don't want you involved in internal union politics. They want you to do something for the people of Ontario. They want you to create jobs. They want you to create confidence. Let's work together. You will find, if you have the courage to do as they ask, that there may be some hope for you in a future life.

I think I have time. This is resolution 28 of this group, from the Canadian executive board, local and provincial organizations committee:

"Whereas the Ontario Minister of Labour is entertaining new proposals not previously declared as being part of the labour law reform as it affects the construction industry, and

"Whereas for over 100 years, the international union structure has provided the industry with stability that has delivered effective labour relations in the province, and

"Whereas should Bill 80 be legislated, it would seriously disrupt the construction industry and undermine sound labour relations practices in this province, and

"Whereas this legislation is discriminatory and attacks only certain international unions, namely international building and construction trades unions, Bill 80 usurps the autonomy of the building and construction trades unions where not warranted and is designed to destroy structures and create disunity and internal strife, and

"Whereas volumes of letters from local unions of all affiliated organizations, from provincial councils, from provincial bargaining structures, from provincial trades councils and from employer groups have been received in the Canadian office, irrefutably opposed to this proposed legislation,

"Therefore be it resolved that the delegates to the seventh Canadian convention support the Canadian and executive board of the building and construction trades department in its effort to ensure that the Ontario government cease and desist from giving further consideration to Bill 80, a bill that will weaken and ultimately decimate the construction industry."

Is Joe Maloney telling the truth? I think he is. I don't think you're listening. I think it's a travesty. You're ignoring the people who put you where you are. You have turned against them and they're not going to forget it. Minister, you've got a chance. Withdraw the bill, strike a committee and let's do something to solve the problems.

1650

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for his contribution to the debate. Now we have time for questions and/or comments.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): The member raises a number of issues and it's going to be tough to respond to them, but I'm sure some of these other issues have come up with other speakers in the debate, but a couple of ones I wanted to discuss are, first, the support for the bill. A number of unions are on record as supporting the bill. We have the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, representing 60,000 workers; the London and District Building and Construction Trades Council; the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference; several locals of the Bricklayers; IBEW; Labourers, Operating Engineers; and a number of unionists who have come forward saying that their local supports the bill but they've been afraid to state that publicly because of the fear of reprisals from the international parents.

As for examples for the reason for this bill, just to bring forward a couple of cases: trusteeship imposed on Labourers' Local 506, Toronto, to prevent the defeat of an international support candidate in local elections by a reform candidate, and trusteeship imposed on Labourers' Local 1059, London, where the local filed charges against the local business manager for using fraud to gain election, and with that tried to remove him from office. The international imposed trusteeship and fined the local executive.

As for some of the consultation, when unions come forward and say they want to consult with the minister but they're totally opposed to the bill, how can you have consultation when they come in with a straight answer that they don't want to consult on it, that they just want us to get rid of the bill? That's not consultation, so there's no sense in their meeting with the minister. The minister and his staff have met with a number of locals that have come out in favour of this bill, and that's true consultation. As the minister stated in his opening remarks, there are probably going to be some changes brought forward in the committee stage and there will be amendments to this bill.

As for one other thing on Bill 80, the resolution of jurisdictional disputes, you shouldn't confuse the issue by talking about disputes between the trades and the issue of disputes within a single trade. Bill 80 only deals with a parent international.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Kitchener-Wilmot for his contribution. Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the member for Mississauga West has two minutes to respond.

Mr Mahoney: I thank the member for his response. It's the first time I've heard of any examples. I asked for examples. I don't know the details of them. Members of the unions have asked for examples, and we'd like to sit down and they would like to sit down and discuss those examples. Why wouldn't you do it that way? That's exactly what we've been asking for all along in this, and I hear it --

Mr Abel: Do your homework.

Mr Mahoney: Believe me, I've got lots of homework done on this one. I just heard the NDP's understanding and I've heard what they mean by consultation: "If you agree with us, we'll consult with you." That's what you said. You said, "The people who wanted to talk to the minister didn't agree with him on the bill, so what's the point of talking to them?"

Hon Ms Churley: That's not what he meant.

Mr Mahoney: That may not be what he meant. I can only go by what I hear, and I saw his lips moving and I know it's in Hansard, and that's what he said. You know what? Even if that isn't what he meant, let me tell you, that's what people think. That's what the people in the Boilermakers and the CFL and the Electrical Workers and all of these people think, that unless they come in sort of cap in hand and say: "Gee, gosh, golly. Hi, Bob. We agree with what you're trying to do. It's really good stuff. Now can we have some input into it?" -- they think that's how they have to operate.

They're not going to be hypocrites, because they don't agree with it. They had very legitimate reasons for not agreeing, and so what happens? You say the minister says, "I can't possibly change these guys' minds, so I'm not going to listen to them." Well, Coop, I'm sorry, but that's what you said, and that clearly is wrong. Listen to them. You don't have to listen to me; listen to them. They've got some good ideas, some good suggestions. I would have thought, Minister, with your background, you would have wanted to listen to them to see if they could help out.

The Acting Speaker: Further speakers?

Mrs Witmer: It's a pleasure for me today to speak to Bill 80. Certainly, this is a bill that needs some discussion and also needs some further consultation. It was disappointing to finally hear for the first time just a few minutes ago two of the examples why Bill 80 was introduced.

Since the minister introduced the bill on June 25, 1992, I have been asking in question period: "What is the demonstrated need? What are the problems or the cases that have come to your attention to prompt you to bring in Bill 80?" Since June 25, 1992, I have not been able to get any response from the minister and I think that's most unfortunate. All he ever told me was that there had been extensive consultation which is ongoing right now with the AFL-CIO, with the internationals, with the local unions. He said, "I have met with many of them, almost all of them, on this issue and we have been trying to work out a mutually agreeable arrangement."

I can say to you, Mr Minister, that there has not been adequate consultation. It's obvious from the remarks that were made by the parliamentary assistant just a few minutes ago that the only viewpoints, the only people who were listened to were the people who agreed with the bill and the intent of the bill.

I guess I would still submit to you that if there are problems, and obviously there are problems and things can always be made better, I don't know why it was necessary to bring in this Bill 80. I don't know why the problems could not have been resolved in a different manner, if that had been the will of the government, but that obviously was not the will of the government. I'll speak to that some more later.

I just want to say that the proposed revision that was brought in today is not the same Bill 80 that we had before us. These are not amendments. What this government has done is introduce a totally new bill, and it should have been honest enough to admit so. The reason, though, that you're going ahead with Bill 80 and not introducing a new bill is because the original bill was retroactive to June 25, 1992, except for section 3, and you want to ensure that this continues to be the date that the bill is retroactive to.

I'm totally appalled that what we have here now is a new bill. These are not amendments. In all fairness, you should have brought in a new bill and you should have allowed for adequate consultation on the bill. You also should have consulted with the opposition critics. You have been quite remiss. Any information that we have received regarding Bill 80 we have obtained from people other than yourself. For this government to talk about consultation on this particular bill -- I can tell you that the unions are absolutely correct: The bill simply has not been discussed at all with anybody who doesn't agree with the government on Bill 80.

I also want to set the record straight. Although there are individuals who support Bill 80, there are many, many others who are concerned about the bill, because the minister has not been able to demonstrate a need. As I indicated, whenever I've asked questions there's been absolutely no response.

There's also a concern that it's going to contribute to chaos in the construction industry. At a time when this government and all of us should be focusing our energies on creating an environment in this province that will contribute to job creation, what we have here is a bill which is going to interfere and try to override the duly formulated constitutions of the unions.

These are some of the things that are of great concern, I can assure you, to people throughout this province.

Let's take a look at the substance of the bill. One of the problems we have with this bill is that the media and the public don't understand the bill. The minister and the government have done a very, very poor job of really identifying any problems and then suggesting solutions, so I have the media approach me saying: "Elizabeth, what is this bill all about? The ministry's not telling us. What's the problem? What are the issues?" It's not my job to be telling the media or the public what the problems are if the minister or the ministry doesn't tell me what the problems are.

1700

What this bill does is attempt to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act for the construction sector, and I think it's important that the viewing public and the media get some understanding of this bill. What Bill 80 is attempting to do is to address six major issues: (1) trade union constitutions, (2) shared bargaining rights, (3) jurisdiction, (4) interference with a local trade union, (5) successorship and (6) administration of benefit plans.

Now, let's take a look at the trade union constitutions. This is section 138.1(3). This states that in the event of a conflict the provisions in sections 138.2 to 138.7 are to prevail over the provisions in the constitution of a trade union. Well, I can tell you, Mr Minister, that unions have three concerns about that particular amendment. They believe this is an unprecedented intrusion by the government into the democratic internal affairs of trade unions. I think that is probably the most critical concern they have, and certainly it's a concern that the public needs to be aware of, because we do have the government taking this unprecedented move to intrude into the democratic internal affairs of trade unions.

They are concerned with this section because it passes to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, commonly referred to as the OLRB, the responsibility of exercising the powers contained in the affected trade unions' constitutions. We are now going to have the overburdened OLRB taking on the responsibility. They're not sure that the OLRB even has the will or the necessary expertise to take on this responsibility. Why would you give to the OLRB the responsibility of exercising the powers contained in the affected trade unions' constitutions? They certainly question why you would do that.

Their third concern is, why have you singled out only the building trades unions for this flagrant interference into the democratic internal affairs of trade unions?

Let's move now to the second issue of concern: shared bargaining rights, 138.2. This section will give local trade unions the same bargaining rights outside the ICI sector as within the sector. The minister could "require a parent trade union and its local trade unions to form a council of trade unions."

Now, you claim that this is going to bring balance and fairness to the parent-local relationship by providing greater input and involvement of the local trade unions. However, I want to tell you again about the concerns the unions have. Purchasers of construction projects which require considerable labour input over many years may lack the confidence to proceed if the international does not have control. They are also concerned that this provision divides the power and interferes with trade union constitutions. It is unclear which partner in a trade union council would be given the authority to enforce the constitution or the minister's rule.

Let's take a look at the third major issue: the issue of jurisdiction, section 138.3.

It's interesting that the minister has elected to leave right now, because we're getting into the technical part of the bill and the government has been very careful to make sure that nobody really knows what's contained within this bill.

This area of jurisdiction "requires the consent of a local trade union before a parent trade union may alter the jurisdiction of that local. The government claims that local trade unions need to have greater input into the resolution of these matters as protection from sanctions imposed by parent unions." A parent union can currently shrink or eliminate a rebellious local by splintering its territory among neighbouring locals. However, again the unions have expressed some concerns and they have expressed five concerns that I want to deal with right now.

"The regulatory power of a parent trade union serves as a powerful deterrent to the temptation of one local trade union to lay claim to the work or territory of another. If this power is taken away, the number of disputes could increase dramatically. It is precisely this kind of uncertainty that can make the non-union option increasingly attractive to the construction purchaser.

"This provision also greatly reduces the ability of a parent trade union to ensure that the business of the local is carried out in an effective manner...." -- that is, organizing new members.

"The Building and Construction Trades Department has worked hard over time to develop a system for settling jurisdictional disputes among the various international unions. This system is binding on all trade unions and employers in the industry..."

The jurisdictional provision "is in conflict with the constitutions of most of Ontario's building trades unions."

Their final concern focuses on two questions: How many local trade unions have suffered the loss or the alteration of their territorial jurisdiction in the past 20 years? Where is the evidence?

These are the types of questions that the minister has not answered. That is why there is concern as to what the demonstrated need is for this legislation. There are many people in this province who simply have not been given the answers that they were looking for. They have been given no answers, just as we in this House have been given no answers. We've simply had the minister say to us time and time again: "We're going to go ahead with Bill 80. It's needed." But why is it needed? Why could the problems that he says are present in the province not have been resolved through discussion and consultation and worked out in a manner other than using Bill 80? The minister has never clearly given us a response to that question.

Let's go on now to another major issue: interference with a local trade union, section 138.5. This section will prevent a parent from assuming supervision of a local trade union in such a way that its autonomy is affected without just cause. Also, local trade union officials could not be penalized by a parent trade union without just cause.

The government claims that this section provides protection against reprisals and satisfies the need of local trade unions for greater autonomy. However, again, there have been some concerns raised about this section 138.5, interference with a local trade union, and these are the concerns that the unions have.

First, it is difficult to ascertain precisely what the impact of this section would be without knowing three things: One, what constitutes interference with local autonomy? No one has given us an answer. Secondly, what standards would be used to measure just cause? Again, we have no answer. Finally, who would define the standards of measurement?

So you can see that it's difficult to ascertain precisely what the impact of this section would be without knowing the answers to the three questions that I've asked: What constitutes interference with local autonomy? What standards would be used to measure just cause? Who would define the standards of measurement?

1710

Up until now, absolutely no one has attempted to give anybody a response to those three questions. The unions are also concerned because there are already mechanisms in place that can deal with issues such as those that section 138.5 is intended to address. "Trade unions are required by law to ensure a fair hearing by an unbiased tribunal in discipline cases. Most constitutions provide for the protection of the work and territorial jurisdiction granted the local trade union by its parent. Section 82 of the act provides additional safeguards to ensure that trusteeships are used only for their intended and indispensable purpose. Trusteeships are a tool that is essential to the parent trade union officials' ability to keep their organizations strong and effective."

Unions are also concerned because "The OLRB has been very clear in disclaiming jurisdiction over the election or replacement of officers. It has considered in the past this matter to be purely internal to the union.

"This provision again interferes with the constitutions of building trade unions."

Again I ask the question -- and it's the question the unions have that are going to be impacted by this legislation. It's the question the minister has refused to answer:

"How many trusteeships have there been in this province in the past 20 years?

"How many officers have been removed from office without just cause?

"Is such conduct so prevalent that it justifies the placement of all building trades union constitutions under OLRB supervision?"

The unions don't think so and the minister simply has refused to respond. So there is great concern as to why he is introducing Bill 80.

Let's take a look now at the successorship provisions, section 138.6. We see that this section has now been removed from the bill, but this is what was originally stated.

"This section provides a mechanism whereby all of the locals of a parent trade union, independently or after merging with another trade union, may become a successor to the parent union." What it did was allow an Ontario local to break away from its international parent and it was allowed then to take all the local assets and the pension funds with it. "Although the parent trade union must approve the successorship and a double majority of local members is required, provision is made for the OLRB to declare a successor in a case where 'the true wishes of the members of the local trade unions respecting successorship are not likely to be ascertained.'" This would empower the OLRB to decide the fate of a large number of workers without a vote or consultation with these workers.

By the way, the same situation does exist in Bill 40. If you remember, if an employer contravenes the act, the board can automatically certify a union without the requirement that the union demonstrate that it has adequate membership support. There is no vote on that matter.

The government "claims that, unlike the situation for workers in other industries, there are currently no means by which construction industry workers can change their bargaining agents. This section is designed to redress that perceived inequity. It is important to note that the successor union need not be a building trades union."

I can tell you, that successorship provision was the most contentious issue regarding Bill 80, and there has been widespread opposition from most sectors of the construction unions.

"This section, more than any other, has the potential to undermine industry stability. This poses a serious threat to province-wide bargaining in the ICI sector. Mature bargaining relationships have been formed through years of effort, resulting in an enormous reduction in the number of individual collective agreements in the province and setting a pattern of stable bargaining for the industry."

Madam Speaker, the members of the government do not seem to be extremely interested in the presentation and I think I'll just sit down until they are.

The Acting Speaker: There are several conversations going on. We would like to hear what the member for Waterloo North has to say to the floor. Would the member please continue.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very contentious bill, and as I've indicated, there are two sides. I think it's very important for the government members to be listening to both sides of the argument. It's certainly something that we on this side, as members of the third party, have endeavoured to do, because we are looking for fairness and we want to make sure there is consultation with all the people who are going to be impacted by this bill.

Dealing with the successorship provision, which I have indicated has the potential to undermine the industry's stability: "This provision clearly contemplates the involvement of industrial unions. These organizations lack the background and the experience to competently deal with construction matters. Their involvement threatens existing relationships among the various" international unions "within Canada and the United States. These relationships facilitate such matters as mobility, reciprocity, transfers, training and apprenticeship, and pension plans.

"The potential exists for the eruption of intertrade rivalry if construction workers are divided among international unions, independent...trade unions and industrial unions. The number of jurisdictional disputes would undoubtedly escalate and investor confidence regarding project completion would be undermined."

You can see how devastating the impact of Bill 80 could be on the economic climate in the province of Ontario. It would reduce investor confidence, and as a result, we would see less job creation than is already happening by the private sector at the present time. So this bill and the consequences will have a very negative impact on our economy.

Again, I stress that it's unfortunate that the minister, if he does perceive there are problems, did not sit down with the individuals concerned and simply attempt to resolve them. He certainly had the power to do so.

"The successorship provisions also impose an unprecedented 365-day-per-year raiding period on building trades unions, singling them out for treatment that is totally unparalleled in any jurisdiction in Canada."

Finally: "There is irony in the fact that the perceived inequity that this section pertaining to successorship is designed to redress was created after careful consideration by a previous government in 1977 when designation orders were issued. A 1991 review" by George Adams "concluded that all parties to the province-wide ICI agreements clearly believe that the 1977 legislation has met its stated objectives."

Let's go on now to another one of the six major issues of concern. This is the administration of benefit plans, section 138.7.

"This section would entitle a local trade union to appoint at least a majority of trustees of employment benefit plans exclusive of trustees appointed to represent employers. The government claims that this would provide proportionate control for local trade unions over the administration and use of benefit funds."

Let's take a look at the concerns that have been raised by the unions in this province that are going to be impacted by the bill. They have said, "In the case of plans which benefit trade union members in both Canada and the United States, this provision would give control to a local trade union that was vastly disproportionate in terms of the percentage of the total membership that it represents."

1720

These, then, are the six major issues which Bill 80 addresses. I have attempted to define what is contained within each section, I have attempted to point out why the government appears to be supporting this section and I have attempted to point out what concerns the union movement in this province has concerning those particular sections.

It's interesting; in fact, I guess you could call it a strange turn of events that the arguments that were used by the business community in its lobby against the infamous Bill 40 are being reiterated by the union leaders in their opposition to Bill 80. There are three major points that we are hearing again and again. In fact, we hear these points regarding much of the legislation that this government introduces.

First, there is no justification, no demonstrated need for the changes, and it's true: The minister hasn't been able to give us examples.

Secondly, the minister did not consult with all the key players before he tabled Bill 80. We heard the same argument on Bill 40. It appears this minister only wants to talk to the individuals who share his commitment to make the changes. Where is the fairness? Where is the consultation? Where is that desire to listen to all the viewpoints and then come up with a bill which reflects the viewpoints of people in this province?

Finally, we are hearing that Bill 80 will have a negative impact on investment in the construction industry. Of course, we heard that during the Bill 40 debate, and today we have many examples that can certainly attest to the fact that we have lost investment in this province. There has been less job creation in this province because of Bill 40, and obviously Bill 80 could have the potential to have the same impact. It will certainly create instability and chaos within the construction industry, because we now have an industry that is widely divided on this piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that could have been dealt with by the minister in a much more fair manner.

When the government introduced Bill 80 on June 25, 1992, it indicated and stated: "A great number of Ontario local unions have contacted the government to indicate support for the amendments to the act which foster democracy within international organizations. The government has consulted with its permanent advisory panel of union and employer representatives of the industry, the construction advisory board chaired by Victor Pathe, deputy minister, labour-management services."

I can tell you that despite these statements by the minister, despite the information sheet information, there are many union leaders in this industry who claim that they had absolutely no advance warning about the contents of Bill 80. In fact, they haven't even had an opportunity for consultation with the minister since that time because they opposed the bill and he's not interested in listening to the players who oppose the bill.

I also want to tell you that the predominant players in the construction marketplace, that is, the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, were not consulted prior to the introduction of Bill 80. In fact, on August 6, 1992, the Hamilton Spectator reported that only two of the 23 labour organizations in the Hamilton-Brantford Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, and that's within the Minister of Labour's riding, have shown any substantial support for Bill 80. We all know that at the October 24, 1992, provincial building and trades convention in Kingston the delegates supported a resolution to oppose Bill 80.

Now, in all fairness, again, I need to mention that there are individuals who do support Bill 80. I guess what we have at stake here is the future of 15 unions, representing 130,000 building trades workers and millions of dollars in union dues. That is the issue, and that is the stake.

There are people in this province, and the opposition critic alluded to this, who feel that Bob White has a role to play in all of this. I want to just share with you today the Bob White theory. How is Bob White involved with Bill 80? This is a theory that has been put forward by the union leaders and individuals who see no justification for these changes. This is what I have learned.

The building trades left the Canadian Labour Congress in the late 1970s. If you remember your history, Bob White is currently president. They believe that Bob White has convinced your government to introduce a disaffiliation amendment so that construction unions can break away from their international parent, just as the CAW broke away from its international parent under Bob White's reign. They believe that Mr White has selected some individuals within the unions to agitate for disaffiliation. This is going to end and result in splinter construction unions, which will enable Mr White to bring the unions back under the Canadian Labour Congress umbrella. This will mean more dues for the CLC and of course more dues for the NDP.

That's the Bob White theory. I guess if this isn't true, then your government does have a responsibility to prove and to allay the fears and the rumours that are circulating. But I thought that in all fairness we needed to make you aware of the fact that this is the type of information that is being disseminated.

I'd like to deal now with some of the letters that I've received, and believe me, I have a huge stack on my desk. It's probably about that high. I couldn't possibly bring them all. In all fairness, again, there are those people who have sent faxes to me and letters who do support Bill 80. I have heard from both sides. I have another stack that represents the people who are opposed. I can tell you that stack in my office is larger. I think the critic for the opposition said he'd heard from no one who supported Bill 80. Well, I have heard from individuals who have supported Bill 80.

However, I want to deal with a letter that I received recently. The letters started coming, by the way, in 1992, and they really have not stopped. This letter is from Joe Maloney, the assistant to the executive secretary for the building and construction trades department, AFL-CIO. He writes: "There was no prior consultation with the provincial or national building trades with respect to construction labour law. We had heard rumours that something was in the works, but when we inquired of the Minister of Labour and ministry staff, the answer was 'no.' Then on June 21, 1992, Bill 80 was tabled."

1730

He goes on to say: "Once we had a chance to study this document we realized the chaos this would ultimately bring to the already unstable construction industry. We had several meetings with the minister on these issues. He was polite enough and said he understood, but Bill 80 was going to be a fact of life regardless."

I guess you can see that this was the type of consultation that took place.

He goes on to say, "Almost every debate on Bill 80 seemed to surround the 'successorship clause.' The government felt if maybe this clause was removed the document would be acceptable. This strategy was recognized very early in the debate when people started saying that the 'successorship section' was only there as bait in order to pass the remainder of the bill.

"Time has proven this argument correct because in June 1993, the government released a completed revised document to the Ontario Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council. This document consisted of five points, with the successorship provision being dropped.

"As well, they have included reference to the constitution in the 'Jurisdictional' and 'Trusteeship' sections, but with no meaningful intent to it."

I find it interesting that the minister did not share that same revised document with the opposition critic or with myself. As I say, the first that we knew, for real, that something was going to change, was the acceptance of the information, the proposed revisions that we received today.

In concluding, reading from the letter from Mr Maloney: "As I stated from the outset of this document, the government is attempting to override duly formulated constitutions with a direct attack on international construction unions. Their attempts at spreading democracy will create chaos and hardship for construction workers and place the construction industry in turmoil. When they modified their first version of Bill 80, they did not consult with the provincial or national building trades. Once again, we were given a document with no input. How can they turn our structure inside out without any input from those affected? If this legislation is so good, why doesn't it apply to unions outside the construction industry?"

You see, these are the types of concerns that are being expressed by people in the province. I'd like to go on and look at a letter from the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ottawa, Hull and District.

"The Building and Construction Trades Council of Ottawa, Hull and District, at its Tuesday morning regular meeting of September 28, 1993, wish to go on record again as being opposed to Bill 80. We are fed up reading of the revised changes and this government not listening to the construction sector when we say no to Bill 80 in any form. The vast majority of construction unions do not want Bill 80 and we have been telling you this for over a year and a half." This letter, by the way, is to the minister.

They conclude by saying, "If you intend to pass Bill 80, against the wishes of the construction unions in Ontario, then this Ottawa-Hull building trades council will not forget you at the next election and will work to put people in elected positions who listen to their constituents."

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With those words from Ottawa, I don't believe there is a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Could the clerk check for a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Waterloo North can resume her participation in the debate.

Mrs Witmer: I have another letter here from the Laborers' International Union of North America, which is addressed to each member of the provincial Legislature.

"We have been notified that there is a possibility that Bill 80...will go to second reading.

"Bill 80 interferes with building trade unions' ability to govern themselves democratically. Bill 80 interferes with union constitutions and bylaws.

"Section 3 of the bill, which deals with jurisdiction, will impede many unions' ability to successfully administer local unions' jurisdiction. The Ontario Labour Relations Board is already swamped with cases; it certainly does not need internal local unions' geographic and work jurisdiction disputes as well.

"This bill must be defeated. This is a very destructive and regressive bill that centres out only construction unions who have far less problems than the rest.

"I encourage you to defeat this bill and let democracy prevail."

Isn't it interesting that the minister has said this bill is to promote democracy, and yet some of the very people who are going to be impacted by the legislation are telling us that it goes against democracy? This letter is signed by Joseph Mancinelli.

Another letter addressed to myself, September 27 of this year, from the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95. It comes from their business manager, Joe de Wit:

"We would like to reiterate our unconditional opposition to Bill 80 in its entirety. This position was arrived at by a democratically moved and seconded motion which carried by a majority vote of our membership.

"We hope that you and your party will be guided by the vast majority of building trade organizations, councils and locals, [who] have expressed opposition to this onerous and divisive bill."

Here we have a letter dated September 22, 1993, to myself from the Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council, signed by their business manager and secretary-treasurer, John Marchildon.

"We would like to reiterate our unconditional opposition to Bill 80 in its entirety. This position was arrived at by a democratically moved and seconded motion which carried by a 12-to-1 margin.

"We hope that you and your party will be guided by the vast majority of building trades organizations, councils and locals [who] have expressed opposition to this onerous and divisive bill."

A letter from my own community addressed to the Premier, the Honourable Bob Rae, dated September 22, 1993, comes from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 804, and it has been signed by Jerry Wilson, their business manager and financial secretary. Mr Mackenzie also received a copy, as did all of the local MPPs in the region of Waterloo. He writes:

"Dear Mr Premier...

"It puzzles me why such anti-labour legislation would have such a high priority when your government has so many other more important challenges to deal with.

"I realize your government and Minister of Labour have listened to some dissidents within the construction industry who have some very personal situations, and represent a small vocal minority. What you and your minister have ignored is the vast majority of the unionized construction industry who are in total opposition to Bill 80.

"My organization and the vast majority in the industry are very pleased with our affiliation to the international building trades unions, and as I write there are many Ontario members working in various locations in the United States. It is in the best interests of our members that this relationship remain status quo exclusively."

1740

I think that's one of the points we need to remember. There are many people who are part of the construction industry who have an opportunity now to work in the United States. They are able to move freely across the borders and get those jobs that are so desperately needed.

I read again from his letter: "Proof of the strong opposition to Bill 80 is:

"(1) The Canadian Building Trades Convention, 1992, rejected Bill 80.

"(2) The Canadian Federation of Labour, Ontario Council, 1992, rejected Bill 80.

"(3) The Ontario Building Trades Convention, 1992, rejected Bill 80.

"(4) The IBEW Construction Council of Ontario has rejected Bill 80.

"(5) Many individual locals and building trade councils have rejected Bill 80, while only a small minority support it.

"Who is the bill designed for? The government has no business intruding into local union or international union affairs or constitutions. The bill will have a horrible, destabilizing effect on the construction industry in this province. This bill will inhibit organizing, which I don't believe this government is opposed to. This bill is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights. This bill is a contravention of the International Labour Organization convention number 87, article 3, which states, 'Workers and employee associations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities, to formulate their programs.' Canada ratified the above convention in 1972."

Mr Wilson concludes by saying:

"In conclusion, for this government, that is deemed to be labour's friend, to alienate itself from the vast majority of unionized construction workers with Bill 80 is mind-boggling. We see no good, only the harm that has been pointed out. There are enough challenges and problems in the construction industry now without some uncalled for, interfering legislation adding to our challenges. This is a plea to reconsider this ill-conceived bill and withdraw it in its entirety. At the very least, I feel there should be committee hearings held throughout the province. Rest assured, if passed, this will be challenged to your government and the next." That was signed by Jerry Wilson, IBEW, Local 804.

So you can see, the individuals who have formerly supported the NDP government, who formerly believed that you were listening to their concerns, feel totally neglected on this particular piece of legislation. They believe that the government has elected to listen only to those who agree with the bill. There are some very, very legitimate concerns.

I have a letter here. Again, it's from someone in my community, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, and that is Brian Strickland. He's written quite a long letter to me and a discussion paper of Bill 80 that was presented by the Canadian Federation of Labour, Ontario Council. Again, he has expressed his opposition to the bill.

I have here a brief that I know went to the Minister of Labour on Bill 80. These people submitted it. These people are opposed to the legislation. I want you to know who these people are: the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers; the Quality Control Council of Canada; the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; the International Union of Operating Engineers; the International Union of Elevator Constructors, the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, the Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada. These people state on page 2 of the brief:

"Bill 80 is a dangerous piece of legislation. It is dangerous both because of the specific provisions it contains and because it represents for the first time an attempt by the government of this province to legislate the internal affairs of trade unions. Virtually every section of the bill has, for some or all of the organizations who are sponsoring this brief, the potential for immense disruption within the construction industry, the consequent weakening of trade unions and the decline in representation for workers in the industry. It is not a piece of legislation we can accept on our own behalf or on behalf of our members."

They conclude in this part by saying, "We hope you will understand the problems that Bill 80 presents and agree that the bill is ill-conceived and should be withdrawn."

They go on and they talk about intervention and the disaffiliation provision, and they really do deal with each part of the bill at great length. In fact, this document represents 32 pages of concerns, and it ends with the sentence saying, "Bill 80 was ill-conceived from the beginning and should be withdrawn."

That was a brief that I know the Minister of Labour did receive. As I say, there are 33 pages of concern, 32 if you don't count the list of the names, and I hope that the government has listened to those individuals. I hope the members on the other side have taken an opportunity to read all of the information.

I have a letter here from the IBEW that is addressed to Mr Harris. It was written November 27, 1992, and it's from Ken Woods, the international vice-president. It says:

"This letter is being written on behalf of 14,000 IBEW construction workers in Ontario, and the entire IBEW membership in Canada," 67,000 strong, "to make you aware of the most unprecedented, ill-conceived piece of legislation ever presented in the western world, Bill 80....

"Never in the history of the free trade union movement has a government offered such a regressive piece of legislation. Bill 80 is totally biased in that it is directed at only AFL-CI0 building trades unions. The industrial unions are not covered by Bill 80; as a member of the opposition, you should be asking -- why?

"The proponents of Bill 80 speak with a great deal of fervour that the bill will return democracy to the building trades local unions. Notwithstanding the fact that the writer is unaware that democracy has left the building trades local unions, it has to be noted that not one of the proponents of the bill has democratically secured a mandate from their respective local unions to pursue support of Bill 80." You have to recognize that this letter was written on November 27, 1992.

"Furthermore, the official voice for building tradesmen in this province, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council, at its recent convention resoundingly passed a motion to oppose Bill 80 in its entirety...."

Here's another letter that came November 24, 1992, from the Canadian Federation of Labour, the Ontario Council. It is addressed to Mr Harris from Reg Conrad, the president. It's a discussion paper on Bill 80, and it expressed their opposition to the proposed amendment to the Ontario Labour Relations Act through Bill 80. Again, they do a fine job in putting forward the reasons for opposition.

They conclude by saying: "Based on the foregoing arguments, the Canadian Federation of Labour, Ontario Council, recommends that the government of Ontario withdraw Bill 80 in its entirety."

They have a 10-page presentation. Certainly, the members opposite, if you are interested in accessing all of the information that has been sent to us, I'd be pleased to make copies available to you.

1750

Finally, I'll just read one more letter from people who are opposed, and then I'm going to deal with some of the letters from people who are in favour, because I think it's important to get that on the record too.

Here's a letter to Mr Harris, December 7, 1992, from the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers.

"I cannot express strongly enough the devastating effect and total chaos that Bill 80 will cause in the province of Ontario.

"If Bill 80 were to become law, it would have a devastating effect on pension plans, prohibit mobility for the construction worker, not only for the province of Ontario, but virtually North America. It would also eliminate craft jurisdiction agreements that have been in place and have worked well for decades and subsequently would cause nothing but job site disruption and the probability of physical violence. Bill 80 would also allow a rating period of 365 days a year. I'm sure you would agree that with the stranglehold this economic recession has had on this province...as well as the job losses" that are anticipated, "this province does not need legislation that will throw the construction industry into further chaos, which will ultimately be with the demise of this sector.

"It goes without saying that should Bill 80 become law, the opportunity for outside capital investment would be nil, as no one would even consider investing in this province with a Labour Relations Act that would be in total chaos and completely out of control."

That letter is from James Phair, the general vice-president, and he concludes by saying: "Therefore, I implore you to do everything in your power to have Bill 80 rescinded. Trusting that you will give this your immediate attention."

I guess what I want to say at this time is that there is a lot of opposition to Bill 80. Yes, there are those who agree with the bill, but there are a lot who are opposed. This government needs to make sure, during the weeks of public debate in committee, that all of the individuals who are impacted by this legislation have an opportunity to voice their concerns. They then have a responsibility to not just go through the consultation process and say, "We've consulted," and say, "We've spent two weeks listening to people"; they need to incorporate the changes in the bill and not do what they have on so many other occasions, simply go through the public relations exercise and then not listen to the viewpoints of the individuals who disagree with them.

Now, who's for the bill? I got a letter September 30, this year, by John Cartwright, the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council. He has indicated he represents about 5,500 members. He tells me he was disturbed by my statements in the Legislature regarding Bill 80. He goes on to say, "I would like to assure you therefore, that the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council is in support of Bill 80."

He said: "By secret ballot of the delegates, we reaffirmed support for four of the five sections in the bill, dealing with trusteeship, pensions, jurisdictional integrity of local unions, and inclusion of bargaining rights of local unions. The successorship provision was not supported and the government was so informed."

I have a letter from Local 353, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, dated September 30. It's a letter that I got a copy of; it went to the minister. John Morrow indicates: "I appreciate your initiative in bringing forward Bill 80. This type of legislation is long overdue in Ontario."

I have a letter from the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793. This individual writes to me and states, "I urge you to endorse Bill 80." He says they support the principles outlined in Bill 80; a very short little letter.

I have a letter here from George Ward, business manager of the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference, dated September 30, 1993:

"On behalf of the over 10,000 members of the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference, I (along with other trade union leaders) met with you in the fall of 1992 to urge you and your party to support Bill 80.... Since Bill 80 was introduced, the government has had extensive consultation with Ontario construction unions. What cannot be denied is that Bill 80 is about basic democratic rights.... It is about the right to freely choose which union Ontario construction union workers wish to belong to. Bill 80 simply puts control of Ontario construction unions where it belongs: in the hands of its members in Ontario. Please support Bill 80."

A letter from Joe Kennedy, of Local 597, Labourers' International Union of North America. He simply writes to me that they support Bill 80.

Another letter, dated September 29, local union 537, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association. Fred Kneebone is the author of the letter.

"Dear Ms Witmer: I am contacting you now to ask for support from you and your party in regards to Bill 80.... Bill 80 can only help to strengthen construction unions in Ontario. Democratic unions are strong unions."

On September 29, from Local 1059 of the Labourers' International Union of North America, this letter to myself from Mr Jim MacKinnon, the business manager: "Our local union has supported the principles as provided in Bill 80.... I would request that you do not oppose the passing of this amended bill."

It's interesting. All these people seemed to know that the bill was going to be amended and seemed to have copies of the amendments. The only people who seemed to be left in the dark were the people who are going to have the opportunity to vote on the changes.

I have one more letter here, from Michael J. Reilly, a business manager. He indicates that they're very supportive of Bill 80. He says: "Our position on Bill 80 is the same today. Thanking you for your consideration."

I guess what we have here are people who are very concerned about this legislation, people who have good reasons for being concerned, reasons which need not have been there if the Minister of Labour had taken the time to adequately consult with all of the individuals concerned. Unfortunately, that was never done.

Seeing that it's 6 of the clock --

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Waterloo North. When the bill is next called, she will have the opportunity to continue her participation in the debate. It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, October 5, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1800.