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

December 12, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS

Mr Eves moved resolution 35:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that sexual abuse of patients by health professionals is a serious problem as evidenced by the fact that the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients commissioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons heard 303 reports of sexual abuse by physicians and others, that the essence of the relationship between a health professional and a patient is based on trust, and further recognizing that patients are vulnerable, and must be protected, the government of Ontario should pass legislation which would:

(

a) Amend the Regulated Health Professions Act to include two levels of the offence of sexual abuse of patients: (

i) sexual impropriety and (ii) sexual violation as defined in the final report of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients commissioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

(

b) Develop a penalty range for sexual impropriety, including reprimand, apology, fine, temporary suspension of certificate of registration, with conditions, or any combination thereof.

(

c) Amend the Regulated Health Professions Code to include a fine up to $20,000 and mandatory revocation of certificate of registration for five years for health professionals found guilty of sexual violation.

(

d) Amend the Regulated Health Professions Code so that upon application for reinstatement, the discipline committee, the council or the executive committee must require the applicant to fulfil specific requirements including:

-- Having the college publish a notice of application which informs all health professionals of the intention of the applicant to apply for readmission, and outlines how to contact the college with any relevant information prior to the applicant's readmission hearing,

-- Providing a written brief demonstrating the ways in which readmission would be in the public interest,

-- Making good all financial losses caused by his or her sexual abuse,

-- Filing a statutory declaration setting out in full his or her business or employment activities during the period following revocation of his or her licence,

-- Filing a certificate from his or her treating professional detailing the course of treatment entered into and stating the treating professional's opinion of the applicant's compliance with the treatment goals and the success of treatment overall,

-- Filing a certificate from an independent assessor who has evaluated the course of treatment and formed an opinion as to its success in ensuring that the applicant poses no danger to future patients,

-- Filing a series of documents prepared by the treating professional and the assessor, including an assessment of how the abuse occurred, an outline of specific rehabilitation goals and whether or not they have been met and a list of specific changes in behaviour which have occurred through the rehabilitation process,

-- Filing a re-entry plan developed by the independent assessor, which includes substantive safeguards to prevent further sexual impropriety or violation,

-- Demonstrating a commitment to ongoing rehabilitation therapy, including submitting quarterly reports to the college on the status of his or her recovery.

In hearing an application for reinstatement, the discipline committee would be required to carefully consider each of the aforementioned documents, as well as testimony from the applicant, the treating professional and the independent assessor as to the applicant's understanding of the harm done by his or her abuse and the effectiveness of rehabilitation in this case, the specific changes in behaviour which have taken place, the commitment to ongoing rehabilitation and specific rehabilitation goals, the proposed safeguards in place should the health professional be reinstated, and any practice restrictions including monitoring which are recommended.

Having reviewed all evidence regarding the rehabilitation of the applicant, the discipline committee must be convinced that:

-- The evidence presented, including expert evidence, satisfies to a substantial degree of medical and psychological certainty that the applicant will not abuse patients or other vulnerable persons in the future,

-- Readmission would be in the public interest.

(

e) That the Minister of Health and the Treasurer of Ontario establish a survivors compensation fund to receive all moneys paid as fines for sexual impropriety or sexual violation. In addition, the health professional must pay into the new fund the equivalent amount for fees paid by OHIP as "services" when, in fact, the health professional was sexually abusing the patient.

As well, proceeds from a levy of 1% of the annual membership fee of the appropriate body should be forwarded to the fund as a clear demonstration by the medical profession of its collective responsibility to patients who have been harmed by a member of the profession; that the procedure for this remedy be established in consultation with the Women's Health Bureau of the Ministry of Health.

Mr Eves: I want to say at the outset that I must commend the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for taking the initiative that it has taken in this case. I want to let members know that in the gallery here today are George Morrison, president of the college, and Linda Franklin, communications director of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The relationship between a patient and a health professional is one which is based on trust. Patients are extremely vulnerable and must be protected in our society.

The Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients of Ontario found that patients are not protected. In fact, the independent task force commissioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario heard 303 reports of sexual abuse by physicians and by others. So far this year, 149 patients have complained to the college about sexual abuse by their physicians. Sexual abuse of patients by health professionals is a serious problem.

As I said at the outset, I would like to commend the college, but I would also like to congratulate Marilou McPhedran, chair of the task force, and members of the task force for a job extremely well done. It is obvious, when one leafs through the lengthy report, which includes some 60 recommendations and a legal appendix in the form of draft legislation, that each member spent countless hours working on this project.

I and, I believe, other members of my party are committed to a philosophy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse of patients by doctors and other health professionals. We believe in the rationale behind zero tolerance, for the seven reasons enunciated by the task force:

1. Sexual abuse of patients is not acceptable because it inflicts serious harm.

2. It is particularly harmful in that the violation of the patient's trust makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the patient to place his or her trust in health professionals again, providing a major obstacle to recovery in itself.

3. Sexual abuse by a health professional is an excessive abuse of power.

4. Tolerance of sexual abuse by health professionals tarnishes the public trust in health professions, including trust in the majority of health professionals who are providing caring and appropriate care.

5. Zero tolerance is the only philosophy consistent with the protection of the public, which is the primary task of self-regulating bodies.

6. Zero tolerance provides a very clear standard for measuring the effectiveness of policies, procedures, practices and education programs designed to deal with sexual abuse by health professionals.

7. Zero tolerance provides an extremely clear standard of acceptable conduct. It clarifies where the appropriate boundaries in a physician-patient relationship are and will result in an awareness of the presence of sexually demeaning attitudes and behaviour.

We are pleased that a number of groups and organizations have adopted this zero tolerance philosophy. Some of those that have done so to date include the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Medical Association. We believe that all self-regulating health professionals have a responsibility to their patients to ensure that college procedures and polices are sensitive to sexual abuse.

When doctors take on the responsibility of life and death, they also take a Hippocratic oath which enshrines them with absolute trust. The oath reads in part as follows: "In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction, and especially free from the pleasure of love with women or with men."

My resolution is in response to the findings of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients and, more specifically, on some of its key recommendations.

First, I think we should talk briefly about the new

definitions of sexual abuse. I am supporting the recommendation of the task force that the Regulated Health Professions Code and Regulations contain a new definition of sexual abuse which is much more specific and contains two levels for the purpose of determining penalty.

The task force recommended that the Regulated Health Professions Act include two levels of the offence of sexual abuse of patients: the first level, sexual impropriety, and the second level, sexual violation. Two levels of abuse will allow colleges to relate penalties to the nature of the abuse and to create a distinction, ensuring a more severe penalty for more severe forms of abuse and provide clearer

definitions for sexual abuse. Under the

definitions of sexual abuse established by the task force, sexual violation is the most serious.

The penalties established for these two offences are as follows. The recommendations are that all colleges "should develop a penalty range for sexual impropriety, including reprimand, apology, fine, temporary suspension of certificate of registration, with conditions, or any combination thereof."

I believe that any health professional found guilty of sexual violation should have his certificate of registration revoked automatically for five years, with stringent conditions required to achieve reinstatement. While this penalty may seem severe, it is appropriate for the offence defined as "sexual violation" for the following reasons.

Any health professional who has sexually violated has committed

an act that has inflicted serious harm, often illness, to his or her patient. He or she has disregarded the health and wellbeing of their patient in pursuit of meeting their own personal desires.

A health professional who has sexually violated has also seriously betrayed the fundamental trust that society places in a member of a regulated health profession. This damages the integrity of this profession as well as harming the individual patient.

Rehabilitation programs for sexual abusers are not developed to the extent required to ensure an abuser no longer poses a risk of harm to other patients, especially when we cannot identify prospectively that a particular individual will not re-offend, even after attendance at a rehabilitation program. The criteria put forward by the task force allow for the exceptional case where a physician abuser may be able to demonstrate complete and certain recovery.

The penalty also does not remove any legal right the health professional may have to earn a livelihood. Rather it removes a privilege of performing authorized acts in the scope of practice within a health care profession.

In keeping with what the task force has recommended, I believe the mandatory penalty should be imposed after the discipline committee has found a health professional guilty of the second level, sexual violation, with automatic revocation of the health professional's licence or certificate of registration for five years as well as a fine of up to $20,000. The Regulated Health Professions Act code should be amended to require the college to apply specific reinstatement criteria when a health professional found guilty of either sexual impropriety or sexual violation applies to have a suspension lifted or a licence reinstated.

I have several cases here that I will go into in my remarks later on, in proper rotation, as well as some very brief remarks about the survivors' compensation fund, but I might just end my first 10-minute segment with a statement about what I find very disturbing with respect to -- it may sound like I am picking on physicians, but I am not.

I happen to be a member of a professional body myself. It is called the Law Society of Upper Canada. In my opinion the Law Society of Upper Canada, although not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, certainly takes professional misconduct in a far more serious manner than has the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario up to a few months ago. I do not understand those physicians out there who think this is somehow an infringement upon their rights. They do not have a right to sexually abuse anybody. They have a privilege of practising medicine when they behave in a professional manner.

I do not understand how somebody thinks that a lawyer, for example, should be disbarred and for ever prohibited from practising law because he or she stole money, but if you rape a patient, that is all right. "Suspend me for six months, so I can make my payments on my car and my house, and I will go back to doing what I was doing before."

I do not understand that logic, and that is the heart of this resolution. I think it should apply to all 24 health care professions.

Mr Wessenger: I am very pleased to speak on this resolution. This resolution recognizes a major problem with respect to sexual abuse of patients and I believe all members of the House share a concern that this problem be addressed.

Our government is committed to taking the necessary action to deal effectively with the problem of sexual abuse of patients and we are committed to the principle of zero tolerance of sexual abuse. I am pleased that the College of Physicians and Surgeons has also accepted the principle of zero tolerance. We are determined to deal effectively with the problem. Our government has already recognized this in the Regulated Health Professions Act by requiring each health profession to set up a patient relations committee and also by sending a letter to each health profession requiring it to devise a patient relations program.

The task force of the college has 60 recommendations and this resolution by my friend deals with five of them. Our position is that we want to study the recommendations of the task force to refine them and ensure there is an effective enforceable process to deal with the problem of sexual abuse. Our ministry is committed to the processes of an interministerial working group to study the final report of the task force and to discuss its recommendations with all health professions, consumer and public interest groups.

There are certain issues I would like to mention that I think will have to be considered by this working group. Should we amend the act or deal with it in the regulations with respect to the matter of the

definitions? Should the definition of standards apply to each health profession or should we have different standards with respect to different health professions? What may be appropriate to a physician or a psychologist may not be appropriate to someone like a pharmacist, because of the question of trust. I think we have to look at that whole question.

We have to consider the

definitions themselves because we may need some changes or additions therein.

With respect to the range of penalty, the penalty sets out a mandatory five-year suspension. There may be some circumstances where in fact we should perhaps look at a lifetime ban, because there may be some offences that are so serious that they warrant a lifetime ban. With respect to the whole question of rehabilitation and re-entry, I think these are very complicated requirements and I believe they need further study.

There are many questions with respect to the survivors' compensation fund. Should there be one fund for all health professions? Should there be a separate fund for each profession? Should the contributions to the fund be based on a flat fee, as recommended, or should the fee be related to the whole question of risk? There is no question that in certain health professions there is a much higher propensity to have the problem of sexual abuse than in others, because of the nature of the relationship of trust in certain health professions. Of course there is the other question of who should administer the fund.

I think the task force is a major step forward in dealing with the whole question of sexual abuse. I am certainly looking forward to seeing what we can do and the best way of implementing the report and how it can apply to other health professions. I think it is important that we consult and work with the other health professions to determine how the provisions should apply to them as well as to physicians.

I will be supporting the resolution in principle. I am supporting the fact that we must take action in dealing with this very serious question of sexual abuse. We must refine and define a system that effectively deals with the problem so that we may eliminate it from the whole area of health professions.

Ms Poole: As the official opposition's critic for the minister responsible for women's issues, I am pleased today to speak in support of the resolution by the member for Parry Sound.

As members know, only a few weeks ago the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario received the final report of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients. As members know, that task force was chaired very ably by Marilou McPhedran.

I would like to begin by congratulating the board of directors for the College of Physicians and Surgeons. They have shown enormous sensitivity. They have shown that they are willing, indeed eager, to be in the forefront on this issue and to resolve the problems that have occurred in the past. I really commend them for taking the initiative to form this task force. I would also like to congratulate the task force under Marilou McPhedran's chairmanship -- I guess I should say chairship -- for its enormous contribution. This is the first report of its type in North America. It is extremely comprehensive.

It goes to the heart and soul of the issue. If members look at the size of it, they go through everything from guidelines to a history of the problems to comments and case studies. It is an extremely valuable document for this Legislature.

I am very pleased that the member has brought forward this resolution. Some people have said that it is extraneous, indeed unnecessary, because, after all, the College of Physicians and Surgeons has already taken steps to implement the report even though it was only tabled several weeks ago. The Minister of Health has been extremely supportive and has indicated that she intends to move quickly. However, I feel that the member for Parry Sound is to be commended for his commitment to raising this issue and seeing it resolved. I think any time public attention can be brought to an issue like this, it is extremely important.

The abuse of patients by those entrusted to care for them is abhorrent to all of us and there is no excuse for that betrayal. Because of the unequal distribution of power in the doctor-patient relationship, women are particularly vulnerable to their physicians. The physician is in a position of authority and trust.

Whatever the reason for seeking treatment, women are relying on their physicians to care for them and to get them well. When doctors abuse their patients, not only do they deprive them of the treatment they originally sought, but they inflict even more harm. Sometimes it is physical and most often it is severely emotional.

One of the key themes of the McPhedran task force report is that any sexual activity between a patient and her doctor is always sexual abuse. This is what the task force calls zero tolerance. This is the standard it proposed for drafting policies, procedures and programs to deal with the problem.

What does zero tolerance mean? Zero tolerance means we do not tolerate sexual abuse by our health care providers. It means we do not support the ways sexual abuse by physicians is implicitly supported. It means we work towards developing enough support for victims so that they can come forward and heal. Zero tolerance means we work diligently towards educating doctors, other health care providers and the public about appropriate behaviour and attitudes, so that abuse cannot occur as a result of ignorance. Zero tolerance finally means we continue to support touch as a crucial healing part of the practice of medicine.

While this resolution does not specifically mention zero tolerance, the standard is implicit in the various items the member has proposed. In fact, if members look at the member's resolution and the report, they will find much of the wording is quite similar, in some cases identical. One problem with the resolution is that it is not quite comprehensive enough. I guess it is very difficult to make a comprehensive resolution that would equal the weight of the McPhedran report.

This resolution focuses very heavily on the mechanics of reinstating physicians once they have been found guilty and penalized for an offence or abuse. While that is an important component, I think an attempt to put together legislation has to be more thorough and more comprehensive. I fear it would be premature to jump in with piecemeal solutions to such a sensitive and important problem. The parliamentary assistant mentioned several ways in which we need to work more on this problem and make sure we have absolutely the right solution.

As I mentioned earlier, the McPhedran task force is the first of its kind in North America. It has shown that in Ontario we have been able to take a leadership position on the issue and that it is an issue of great importance not only to women but to the medical practitioners of this province.

If we believe that sexual abuse of their patients by doctors must never be condoned under any circumstances -- I think we do believe that in this Legislature -- then surely we must tackle the whole problem, not just particular aspects and ramifications. As I said at the beginning of my comments, this resolution may not be comprehensive enough, it may not go far enough, but at the same time I think every member of this House should support it for its intent, direction and specific recommendations.

Any time members bring to this House issues of such importance, I think they should be encouraged and supported. It gives me great pleasure to say I will be voting in favour of the resolution by the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Winninger: I am pleased to join in this debate today. I certainly welcome the resolution put forward by the member for Parry Sound. He made some remarks, just in closing, regarding the Law Society of Upper Canada and the kinds of onerous penalties imposed on lawyers, culminating in disbarment for life.

I am unaware, however, that the law society has the kind of concerted sexual abuse prevention program that is contemplated in this resolution. I think the law society might well look at this resolution as a model to fill a gap that I think exists, because the public well knows that sexual abuse and harassment do not just go on in the offices of health professionals.

Members of the legal profession often see highly vulnerable clients come to them, perhaps fleeing from domestic violence or family breakup, clients who might place implicit trust in the lawyer and transfer some of the affection that is denied to them elsewhere. I think the lawyers, just like physicians and other health professionals, have a very high standard of conduct that they should abide by.

The problem of physician abuse of patients is not a new one. In fact, in the Corpus Hippocraticum of 2000 BC, concerns were expressed about physician-patient sex. Then again, the report to which my friend the member for Parry Sound has referred, the report of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients, documents that in 1784, Benjamin Franklin led an inquiry into physician-patient sexual relations and voiced his concern regarding physicians taking advantage of patients through the misuse of hypnotism, or mesmerism, for example.

The Canada Health Monitor survey, which was authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons in October of this year, showed that over 8% of women in the 25-to-44-year range have been sexually harassed or abused, so the problem, as the member for Parry Sound has indicated to the House, is a well documented one. How might we come to grips with this? The resolution is certainly a good starting point, I would submit, for the manner in which we as a House concerned with the problem of sexual abuse and harassment might address it.

Sexual abuse is certainly a gross breach of trust. It is clear that physicians and other health professionals have a fiduciary responsibility to their patients which confers on them the highest order of conduct and that nothing short of that can be accepted. This is why I was pleased to see that the College of Physicians and Surgeons so quickly responded to one of the recommendations in the interim report of the task force, that there be zero tolerance. The resolution of the College of Physicians and Surgeons adopting the zero tolerance principle is certainly commendatory.

However, more steps have to be taken to ensure that the goals of zero tolerance can be actively implemented and monitored to ensure that sexual abuse of patients will not tolerated, to ensure that there is no implicit support given to physicians who abuse their patients, to ensure that support is developed for the victims of sexual abuse and harassment so that they might be encouraged to come forward and disclose instances of abuse and harassment, and at the same time commence the necessary process of healing themselves of the effects of victimization.

Furthermore, the public and physicians in general need to be educated that sexual abuse is very inappropriate behaviour when it comes to patients.

Finally, there has to be a caring and nurturing touch that cannot be removed from doctors treating patients, because that too is part of the healing process.

I believe our Ministry of Health is being responsive to the recommendations that an overall comprehensive plan be developed to address sexual abuse prevention. While the resolution by the member for Parry Sound is a commendable starting point, as it incorporates recommendations 24 and 56 of the final report, there is certainly more comprehensive and thorough review and consultation that has to be done with the stakeholders and with the consumer agencies. In conclusion, I would suggest that once the service providers and advocacy groups have been consulted, a sexual abuse prevention plan, a permanent and lasting and durable one, can be designed and implemented.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in today's debate. I am quite familiar with this issue. I would like to begin my remarks by complimenting first the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for beginning the task force on what I know has been a difficult and painful subject for the profession to deal with, and to even discuss in some cases. I see that Dr Morrison is here in the members' gallery this morning, and I hope he will relay my comments to the members of the college. To him personally, I will say I have a great deal of respect for the work he has done and the leadership he has shown.

I know how difficult it was for the college and for all of the members of the profession to initiate this discussion, to then expose themselves to the kind of debate that is occurring not only in this Legislature but in the media and in the press. I think that is a very good example of the kind of leadership we need to have in this province in order that important issues of public concern can be seen to be dealt with not only by those of us in public office, in positions of leadership, but also by those who assume positions of leadership within their own professions. So I express my compliments to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

I would also like to compliment Ms McPhedran and the task force for the outstanding job they have done in raising public awareness and creating sensitivity among doctors in this province, and for doing something else. They have also created awareness that it is not just the doctors of this province who should be concerned with the whole question of sexual impropriety between care giver and patient.

I use the term "care giver" very deliberately, because as we looked at the Regulated Health Professions Act in committee, we realized that this kind of contact between care giver and patient was something of concern not just for doctors but for other care givers. Psychiatrists, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, chiropractors, chiropodists -- many, many professions that have intimate physical contact with patients are becoming aware that they too have an obligation to act with the highest conduct and standard of propriety in their professional relationships with their patients. This is a very important step that we have taken.

We Canadians -- and I speak for myself; I am quite shy about talking about matters of sexuality and a sexual nature in public. We do not like to do that. We particularly do not like to talk about sexual abuse. We do not like to talk about child abuse. We do not like to talk about incest. We are a very private society. But we know that if we are going to change attitudes and behaviours, if we are going to end violence against women and children, if we are going to ensure appropriate conduct among professionals and their clients and their patients, then we must talk about these things.

I also congratulate the member for Parry Sound for putting this on the agenda. I would point out that his motion is a verbatim statement of the recommendations of the task force chaired by Ms McPhedran. It is a verbatim recommendation to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and to the government of Ontario, because it suggests legislative change. But Ms McPhedran's mandate, given to her by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, was to make recommendations about the doctors.

There are now 24 professions about to be regulated in Ontario, each of which I believe has an important responsibility to its patients and to its clients in the matter of sexual propriety and sexual behaviour. They also have, as professionals within a profession, an important obligation to the people of this province to clearly state what their plan is going to be to deal with this issue within each of those professions.

What I mean by that is that under the new act, every college -- and the college is the disciplinary and the governing body, the self-regulator and the governor of the profession -- will be required to develop programs of public awareness as well as standards of conduct for its members. This was a very important amendment that was included, an amendment posed by the Liberal caucus and accepted by the government. I appreciate and applaud them for their support of that amendment, because it is the beginning. Over the course of the next little while, each of those colleges will develop a program to begin to address this very important issue of sexual impropriety.

But that is just the first step. The recommendations of Ms McPhedran and her task force as it relates to doctors go much further. I know of the debate, often heated -- sometimes more heated than I would prefer -- that is going on within the medical profession. I believe that debate is important in every one of the professions where a professional has intimate contact -- and perhaps not such intimate contact, but still contact -- with a patient.

I believe it is very important that the professionals understand their obligations and that they also understand that if they cross that line, they will be held accountable and responsible not only by the patient whose trust they have shattered, whose life they have changed, but also by their governing body and by those of us in public life who speak out on behalf of those whose trust has been betrayed.

The idea of the fund, I think, is a good one. We discussed that at committee and I have a number of quotes, but time does not permit me to read them again into the record. They are in Hansard. We support the concept. We urge the government to move forward. We believe it is important to do this for all of the professions. We believe there needs to be some legislative change, and we will be supportive of that change. It is my hope that today we will all agree that this is an important issue.

Mrs Mathyssen: Like many Ontarians, I have watched with horror in the past months as women, one after another, came forward to openly and publicly talk about how they had been victimized and violated by the doctors in whom they had placed their trust. I truly understand the motive behind the member for Parry Sound's resolution. The blatant betrayal of vulnerable patients by their physicians is repulsive. I understand the member for Parry Sound's sense of revulsion that this could happen, and with such shocking magnitude in terms of the numbers of physicians and patients involved, because I share in that revulsion.

Very clearly, the recommendations made by the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients and put forward by the member for Parry Sound in his resolution must be acted upon. Zero tolerance of sexual violation must be the order of the day.

I was also encouraged by the member for Parry Sound's remarks that not just physicians but the other 24 health professions governed by the Regulated Health Professions Act be included. Unfortunately, the task force commissioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has in fact focused rather exclusively on sexual abuse among doctors. Its many recommendations were quite naturally appropriate to the medical profession. I feel that at this point the discussion needs to be expanded. It is essential to consult with the other 24 professional groups.

Their input will provide useful information and ideas about combatting sexual abuse so that the objective of zero tolerance can truly be realized. We must be sure that in our haste to act we do not inadvertently jeopardize that final goal of zero tolerance. The input from other professional groups will help to highlight which of the task force provisions belong in the omnibus act and which belong in profession-specific acts or regulations. It is very important that this issue is properly resolved. We must do it right.

I would also like to point out that the added benefit of fuller consultation will be the raised awareness and understanding of health professional sexual abuse with those other 24 groups and the general public. This awareness is probably the first and best vehicle for ending this crime against the vulnerable.

One final concern I have with this resolution pertains to the amendments recommended by the task force. They raise some issues in terms of administrative law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must have a resolution that is effective from a legal and practical perspective. In order to avoid the pitfalls that could jeopardize this resolution, I would support the appointment of an interministerial working group to consider the member for Parry Sound's resolution as well as other task force recommendations and amendments not included here. This, combined with the consultation, would be a powerful and effective tool to end sexual abuse.

I would like to conclude by congratulating the member for Parry Sound and thanking him for his efforts on behalf of the women and children who have suffered unspeakably at the hands of those who should have been committed to keeping them safe. It is incumbent upon this House, all health professionals and the people of Ontario to achieve our goal of zero tolerance and to put an end to all abuse.

Mr Eves: I am encouraged indeed by the remarks made by members on all sides of the House this morning. I might say at the outset, because it certainly sounds as if we are picking on physicians here -- it is ironic that because the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is the only body that has had the intestinal fortitude to come forward and do something about the problem, naturally the debate and the comment centres around that report and that profession. But I do want to make it quite clear, if my resolution does not, that my resolution applies to all 24 regulated health care professions. I do not think that thought should be lost.

There are some very disturbing cases of abuse, which I think have culminated in the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario even starting its task force in the first place. Recently, on October 28 of this year, the Globe and Mail published a poll conducted by the Canada Health Monitor and Price Waterhouse Management Consultants which confirms studies in the US. Up until that point in time all studies of sexual abuse in terms of numbers and percentages had been done in the United States and none had really been done in Canada.

In the United States, studies found, generally speaking -- I am paraphrasing here -- that approximately 10% of doctors had been guilty of some sort of sexual abuse or improprieties during the course of exercising their professional duties. The study in Canada found that 8% of women say they have been sexually harassed or abused by their physicians. In fact, that figure may not be a true and accurate figure and may be a little on the low side, because there was a huge difference between female patients who were contacted by a woman as opposed to a male interviewer.

Naturally, I can readily understand that a woman patient would feel much more comfortable talking to a woman interviewer with respect to this particular type of problem.

I also want to talk about a couple of specific incidents, because I think it is important for the public to realize what some patients are undergoing out there. In October 1990, a doctor, accused of encouraging one of his female patients to press her face against his naked pelvic area, was cleared of sexual impropriety by the discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The doctor described this incident as a form of bonding, designed to help his patient overcome childhood traumas. The victim accused the doctor of two separate incidents. The doctor denied the second incident.

The five-member discipline committee dismissed the complaint on three grounds: first, the patient was inconsistent on dates and details of the incidents; second, she waited 18 months before registering her complaint, and last, she went back to consult the doctor after the first encounter and allegedly allowed another incident to occur. The woman's actions are consistent with those of abused or assaulted women.

In 1988, a Metro doctor, who specialized in ultrasound, was convicted on two counts under

section 149 of the Criminal Code of Canada of indecent assault on a patient and one count of sexual assault of a patient under

section 246 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The third incident occurred after the doctor had been notified of the investigation into his conduct by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The doctor, who had been convicted in a court of law, pleaded guilty to the allegation of professional misconduct at a disciplinary hearing conducted by the college.

One of the doctor's victims was a mentally handicapped woman, with a history of child and marital abuse. The committee heard testimony into this matter from the doctor's psychiatrist, a patient of his who is also a nurse, several doctor friends and the doctor's wife. They all testified to the doctor's upstanding character and stated that it was not in the doctor's nature to assault his patients. They also talked about the devastating effect these incidents had on the doctor. No consideration was given, that I can see, to the effect on the patients in these incidents.

In its report on this case, the committee stated that it felt the punishment should fit the offence. It took into consideration that the doctor had served the sentence imposed by the district court of Ontario, that he had suffered public and professional humiliation, that he had pleaded guilty before the committee and that revocation was unnecessary to protect the public from this doctor.

There was a minority opinion to this judgement, which I think is important, which called for the revocation of this doctor's licence. This opinion, to my mind, more realistically addresses the issue. The author of this minority opinion stated:

"It is the mandate of the discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to ensure that the public is well protected from substandard care by those whom it has licensed.

But also, and equally important, it must ensure that when a physician violates the solemn trust bestowed upon him or her and fails in his or her unique responsibility as a private custodian of a patient's vulnerability and takes advantage of that vulnerability, all while using the camouflage of being a respected physician, and does so not once but on three separate occasions, then the degree of violation of that trust becomes academic and the penalty for such behaviour should reflect the committee's gravest concern." It went on to say, "The doctor's professional peers should view such repeated activity as a most serious breach of professional ethics, utterly reprehensible and totally unacceptable."

Not only has the college in the past been guilty of penalties which I think are far too lenient, but it has also had a problem with lawyers and judges, in that on some occasions when it has taken, in my opinion, appropriate action, we find the courts overruling and throwing out its recommended penalties for reprimand and suspension. I think that too goes to the root of a much larger problem in our society today.

We are not just here, although I know it sounds like it, talking about physicians and their abuse and their recognition of reality in today's society. This seems to be ingrained in the legal system, in the judiciary and in the attitudes of at least some members of those professions, who do not seem to understand how serious an offence this is. As the member for Oriole and the former Minister of Health has so appropriately put it, I think, these are issues we do not seem to want to talk about in our society today.

Finally, we do have a body that has had the intestinal fortitude to confront this issue head-on, and I would ask it not to give up on its resolve to pursue what I consider to be a very important issue in society today.

I regard my resolution as merely a first step with respect to many health care professions, and other professions in society as well, I might add. I believe there is a difference between the trust which health care professionals have and some other professions. Most of the time, I think it would be fair to say, the trust that is placed in such professions as the legal profession or the accounting profession tends to be of a monetary nature as opposed to being a trust of one's physical and mental person in itself. That is the abuse we are trying to address, or starting to address with my resolution here this morning.

I have talked to the current Minister of Health about my resolution, and although she was not totally happy with the wording -- neither am I -- I do believe it is a first and important step in going out and consulting with various health care professions and developing legislation which all health care professions can adopt, embrace and embody. Hopefully this will also lead to other professions, such as the legal profession, recognizing zero tolerance in dealing with abuses of this kind.

One thing that does concern me is the fact that during the last week in November just past, the discipline committee of the college handed down a decision with respect to a Sarnia physician, suspending his licence for six months. This physician was convicted in a court of law of abusing 10 different women, although I must say none in the course of his relationship with them as physician to patient, but they were nurses, members of hospital staff and mothers of several young patients.

The fact that this decision was made just two days after the task force final report was released by the very same self-regulating body concerns me greatly. I know this decision was about acts that took place over a period of several years and I know this particular situation, if we can describe it as that, was not in a direct doctor-patient relationship.

But I want to compare it to action the Law Society of Upper Canada took with respect to a lawyer who had been found guilty of sexually assaulting two employees of his, not in his legal profession but in another business operation he had. He was found guilty in a court of law. He did not have any direct relationship with these people as clients. He was disbarred for ever: do not pass go, do not collect $200, you are out of here.

If the legal profession can take those steps, surely the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons can do better than a six-month suspension and, "Don't ever let this happen again because if we ever catch you again we're really going to throw the book at you; you're going to get 18 months next time." That is a joke. It ridicules the task force report. It is time people started to take these things seriously. What the task force report means to me is not just 60 pages of documentation; it means changing attitudes and making the tough decisions that are going to lead to a correction of this problem in society.

I want to speak briefly about the survivors' compensation fund, and I do mean briefly. It was an amendment that has been introduced during committee and unfortunately not accepted, but I believe we must come to grips with this issue as well. I do not think that asking any profession to appropriate or give 1% of its annual dues towards a fund to help individuals that have been abused by any profession -- I do not care what it is -- is an unrealistic request. As a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada I can contribute one heck of a lot more than 1% of my annual dues to a fund for lawyers who make mistakes.

I do not think it is unrealistic. In fact, I think 1% is extremely low. I do not know how anybody could have voted against that amendment.

I ask the government to take this matter seriously. I know legislation cannot be developed overnight. I know this involves more than physicians only. It involves at this stage what we are debating here, the 24 self-regulating health care professions in the province. I encourage consultation.

I do not expect the minister to come forward with legislation next week or even in the next couple of months, but I do think we have to get serious about this and get on with the job at hand so that we can develop together, with these professions, a code of conduct and appropriate penalties, where required, that will certainly deter, prevent and educate members of these professions so we can protect the patient and women at large in society.

I am not standing here as a smug lawyer. That the law society does not have a zero tolerance philosophy I think is a disgrace to members of my profession, quite frankly. Unless we as professionals and as individuals in society start to treat these problems seriously and deal with these problems in an appropriate manner, this abuse is going to continue in society. We have to meet this problem head-on. I would encourage all members, regardless of their political stripe, to support what I think is merely a first step down the road in trying to rectify a lot of things that have gone on in the past that I do not think should be allowed to go on in the future.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Mr Mammoliti moved second reading of Bill 160,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 160, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail.

Mr Mammoliti: Those in this Legislature who know me know I am a fair person and that I would like to see harmony and agreement at all times. If that means we have to sit down sometimes and hash things out and battle and squirm, then that is what we should have to do. My bill talks about giving the opportunity to certain people to do exactly that, sit down and talk.

We all know Bill 162, the infamous Bill 162 that was introduced and passed in July 1989. That bill spoke of a multi-employer benefit plan. More specifically, subsection 5a(1) states, "An employer, throughout the first year after an injury to a worker, shall make contributions for employment benefits in respect of the worker when the worker is absent from work because of the injury."

My amendment is actually to subsection 5a(9). The people who know Bill 162 will know this particular

section has a deadline, that deadline being January 2, 1992. Needless to say, January 2, 1992, is only a blink away, just down the road a few days, so I am urging that this goes through. I will speak a little more on it in a second, but I am urging all members in the House to pass this unanimously in that if it does not go through unanimously, it just will not work.

What will happen if it does not go through unanimously from all three sides will be chaos. The employees will then be put in the position of finding funding on their own for this multi-employer benefit plan and the employers will opt out, which means that some employers -- not all employers, but most employers -- will opt out of the plan. They will not have to contribute. What does that mean to employees? It means they have to find money, and they have to dish a little more out of their own pockets in terms of contributions.

It also means, from what I can understand, that there will be chaos in some of the legislation out there in terms of who is responsible for what; the Income Tax Act, for instance, and the Pension Benefits Act. There has been some discussion on where the legality is towards contributions and who will be responsible. In their present form, the multi-employer pension plans are not structured to make contributions, and this could bankrupt some plans.

In addition, they do not have the administrative capacity to manage the additional Workers' Compensation Board requirements. The plans are not structured to make contributions, and it is illegal to do so under the Pension Benefits Act.

Many injured workers would not be covered, causing undue hardship. What are the workers supposed to do? If members will remember, in 1989 this particular clause in Bill 162 was pushed through at the last minute, from what I can understand. There was not much time for debate, there was not much time for anything. The bill was pushed through and we are seeing problems now.

The problem now is that only two of the current negotiating bodies have negotiated. That leaves the rest of them, actually 26 collective agreements, that have not been negotiated. What does that mean?

It means that come negotiation time in 1992, we are going to have some pretty angry employees when their employers say, "Because of this particular act, we no longer are responsible for contributing." The workers I speak to -- I come from a background of workers myself, and I would also be upset if I sat down with my employers and they said, "Sorry, because January 2, 1992, has passed, subsection 5a(9) states clearly that we are exempt. We are not going to pitch in and give any more money to that body, those trustees we are supposed to give out this money to." The employees will be upset.

What does that mean at work? At this point, I guess we can all just assume, but it is reality.

If my amendment goes through, not only today at second reading but third reading as well -- again, I am hoping it will be unanimous consent -- it will give the employees and the employers a chance to negotiate, a chance to sit down and talk about who is responsible for what, when and where, and it will give them till 1997 to do that, so it gives them ample time.

I will mention again that only two of the bodies have negotiated this and it leaves 26 that have not, so it is very important.

There is an argument that may come up in terms of legislating. I have had a couple of members talk to me about this already, saying that perhaps it is the Ministry of Labour that should be looking at this as opposed to a private member. I think it is everybody's responsibility, and if I do not take it on, if I do not make this known, if I do not let people know this is an issue, then maybe nobody else will take it on.

My answer to the couple of people who will perhaps be bringing it up later is that maybe they are right, maybe it is their responsibility, but we are talking about workers, we are talking about individuals who are going to have to dip into their pockets come January 3 to pitch into their own contribution package.

We have to understand that employers have already -- the status quo is there -- given in the past. It is a saving for the employer and it is going to be drastic for the employees. So I plead again -- and I am looking forward to hearing some discussion on this -- to members across and members from the government side to please look at this and give unanimous consent for both second and third reading. We do not have time to go to committee. January 2 is the deadline.

Mr Offer: I am pleased to join in the debate on this particular bill because I think it raises an important issue and one which should be rectified. Certainly we will be standing in support of this legislation in terms of the issue that has been raised and the way in which it can be solved.

I would like to indicate very briefly that what this bill seeks to correct is that the Workers' Compensation Act requires an employer to make contributions for the employment benefits, such as health and welfare, pension plan and life insurance benefits, of a worker whose is absent from work due to a compensable injury for up to 12 months after the injury has occurred. That is what the act now requires.

However, on January 1, 1992, in a short two or three weeks from now, employers in what are called multi-employer benefit plans are exempt from that requirement. So in just a few short weeks, that requirement under the Workers' Compensation Act, which requires an employer to make contributions, will not apply to multi-employer benefit plans.

It is clear that if the contributions are not maintained, many injured workers, and we could be talking about thousands of people, will not be covered, which will cause, without any doubt, undue hardship. After January 1, 1992, there will without doubt be two classes of employers and workers. First, employers who make contributions and those who do not and, second, workers who receive coverage by their employers and those who do not. What the bill clearly does is, in principle, seek to remedy that by extending the requirement to make contributions for some years down the line.

I have received letters from the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference; the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario; the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95; the Ontario division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees; the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local 128, and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, who have written in support of the legislation. I have also had discussion with Gerry Raso of the sheet metal workers' conference and as well from Kate Acs of the provincial trades council, again, all in support.

So we stand in support of the legislation and for the solution to the issue which is going to come about. But to all those who sent those letters and to all of the people who are represented by those who sent those letters and to those to whom I spoke over the phone, I think we have to be very clear as to what process we are going through here.

No matter what the member for Yorkview has stated, this is not government legislation. Make no mistake about it. The government, knowing full well what the issue was going to be, and the Minister of Labour -- and I am glad the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour is here today -- did not see fit to bring this forward in terms of government legislation.

The government has not embraced the initiative that the member for Yorkview has carried out in his legislation. For those members of the government to send out a message to those people who have written me letters that this is some government initiative is absolutely erroneous and I dare say is playing with those people who are going to possibly fall victim to this particular issue.

If the government had the commitment, if the government took the responsibility, we would have already dealt with this legislation by a government initiative. Saying that they agree with this, the members on the government side put their heads down in shame because they know that is correct. Just two weeks ago we dealt with government legislation that talked about reforms to the Ontario Labour Relations Act as it applied to the construction workers. That was an initiative which was introduced by the Minister of Labour and supported by our party and by the third party. That is an initiative which is now going to be law in this province.

I understand why he introduced the legislation, but the member for Yorkview would have done very well to have tried to convince his own caucus colleague the Minister of Labour to stand up, make a statement and introduce government legislation. They have not done that. It is absolutely clear that though we on this side very much agree with this legislation, the Minister of Labour and the government have not stood up and introduced legislation, and we know why: They do not yet embrace this concept.

It does not matter what the members on the government side say, we know what the process is here. If the government is in favour of this initiative, then it has the Minister of Labour, and it is the Minister of Labour who should be standing in his place talking about this bill and why it is important to the government. We do not have that.

The second point I want to make is this -- and for those who are watching, I am very upset, as I am sure you can see, Mr Speaker. I am very upset that members on the government side would seek to use this issue, would seek to use the many thousands of people who will be hurt by this particular matter, who seek to use this by not having the Minister of Labour --

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: If we agree on this, what is the point of arguing?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is not a point of order.

Mr Mammoliti: Let me finish, Mr Speaker, please. To say that I am "using" is wrong.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is not a point of order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. The honourable member for Mississauga North has the floor.

Mr Offer: I speak with great conviction on this, and passion, because I do not like what the government member has done in this respect. This is a matter which is going to affect thousands of workers. The parliamentary assistant, who is looking at me, knows this. The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Labour did not bring forward this piece of legislation. They know very well we stand in favour of it. We support this legislation but we are here on December 11; not another week is going to pass in this Legislature.

The members on the government side know that, as we speak here today, there are now countless pieces of government legislation that have to go through second reading and that this bill is not going to proceed further.

That member knows that because the government has not seen fit to place the priority on this type of issue that it should have. We on this side are in support of the legislation. We are in support of the principle. We are in support of curing the problem that is going to arise on January 1, 1992.

We are shocked that the Minister of Labour could not have stood in his place months ago and said: "This is the bill and we need reading, we need passage," because we know as we stand here, with but four days left in the Legislature and countless pieces of legislation already to be discussed and already set down for how the last four days are going to proceed, that this bill will not be one of them. I will not let anyone who has written me a letter or whom I have spoken to be taken in by that type of procedure. I think it is irresponsible.

I would have liked to see the Minister of Labour bring forward this piece of legislation. We could have given it passage, as we did but two weeks ago to the changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act as it affects the construction industry. We did that two weeks ago. We stood up in support, we recognized it was an important issue. We recognized that this is the way in which it could be corrected, and we did so. The government has not seen fit to address this issue the way it did the other issue.

We are going to make certain that those people who very much agree with our stance in support on this issue recognize that the government did not have the commitment, the Minister of Labour did not take the responsibility and, as a result, this particular problem will exist January 1, 1992, because of the inaction of the NDP government that now forms the government of the province.

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill 160. I would like to indicate at this time that we recognize the importance of passing Bill 160. We recognize that this is going to amend subsection 5a(9) of the Workers' Compensation Act and it is going to require employers to make contributions for employment benefits of a worker who is absent because of injury during the first year after the injury occurred. We realize that if the legislation is not passed by January 2, 1992, it is going to put some of the employees in this province in an extremely uncomfortable and difficult position. We certainly agree with the principle that this needs to be passed.

However, I have had an opportunity to talk to many of the individuals the Labour critic for the Liberals has indicated he has spoken to. I have spoken to the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers. I have spoken to the International Union of Operating Engineers. I have spoken to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I have spoken to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I have spoken to the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. I have letters here from CUPE, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, the Carpenters and Allied Workers.

I guess the most shocking revelation for me was the fact that these organizations today believed that this was government legislation. They were absolutely surprised, shocked and amazed that this government did not initiate action and had not demonstrated care and compassion for the workers, when it knew it was so imperative to bring this bill forward at this time before the end of this session. I did indicate to them this was a private member's bill and, yes, the Minister of Labour should be here on behalf of the workers in this province and indicating the priority.

In fact, I would indicate to members if the government were to bring in a bill this afternoon, our party would be quite prepared to approve the three readings. However --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. Interjections are out of order. The honourable member for Waterloo North has the floor and may proceed.

Mrs Witmer: It is extremely unfortunate that the government has chosen to use the process of a private member's bill to introduce such an important piece of legislation, which, as I indicated before, if not passed, will create -- I would not say chaos, but it is going to create undue hardship for many people in this province. This is a most inappropriate use of procedure for the introduction of a bill. I ask the government why it chose to take this route and put the opposition in a position where there is not an opportunity to thoroughly discuss and debate this issue.

Why did the government not initiate this action? Why is the Minister of Labour not here today to speak to this issue? Why was this not a priority for this government?

I would like to refer back to Bill 158. Bill 158 was the construction bill which dealt with the Adams report. I would like to talk about the very co-operative manner in which it was developed. I would like to talk about the way in which the two partners, the employers and the employees, were brought to the table. Issues were presented and they were asked to resolve the issues.

As a result, the government approached both the member for Mississauga North, the critic for the Liberal Party, and myself and asked for our co-operation in the passage of that bill. We certainly agreed. We realized the need, the urgency, to pass the bill before the end of the year and were quite amenable in order that the needs of the construction workers in this province would be met in time for them to enter into negotiations in 1992.

Why did the government not do the same thing for Bill 160? Why did it not ask for our co-operation in the swift passage of this bill? I am confident, as I indicated before, that we would have been quite prepared -- in fact, we would be quite prepared this afternoon -- if the government were to bring forward this bill, to pass it quickly through the three readings. However, we are very disappointed with the process the government has used and at its lack of concern for the workers, because there will be undue hardship created if this bill is not passed this session. The government had an opportunity to introduce the bill, but it did not.

I would also like to mention at this time that we are very concerned, because although they did not have time to bring forward this bill, they have had an opportunity to go off on tangents around the Workers' Compensation Board, a board which we know is totally out of control. Instead of ensuring that this issue be brought forward and dealt with effectively, they have gone off on a tangent. They are now holding six months of hearings to take a look at occupational stress.

I would like to read from what the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation has to say. According to the study they commissioned, which was done by William M. Mercer Ltd, "Compensating for occupational stress under Ontario workers' compensation is going to produce more than 9,000 claims, costing upwards of $178 million annually." This is going to open the floodgates to so-called stress-related claims. It is going to create more financial hardship for the WCB, which already imposes the highest average assessment rates on employers of all Canadian jurisdictions.

The unfunded liability, $9.9 billion, represents future payments for which the WCB has not put aside the money and amounts to some $30,000 for every business in the province. They go on to say, "It's highly irresponsible for the board to advance this proposal without assessing the financial ramifications and the impact."

This is the type of issue that the Workers' Compensation Board is dealing with instead of dealing with the issue in Bill 160, which would protect the workers in this province. As I have indicated, they are off on tangents. They cannot handle what they have at the present time and yet they go ahead and look at the inclusion of stress.

I find it totally unbelievable because I understand that although there was a bit of limited discussion around the issue contained in Bill 160, they did not proceed. They did not encourage employers and employees. People have been left in the dark and given no encouragement whatsoever. I indicate at this time that although I agree with the principle, I am extremely disappointed that there has been no leadership demonstrated by the Minister of Labour. I am disappointed that he is not here today on behalf of the workers in this province who will be impacted if this bill is not passed today.

I find totally unbelievable the lack of government initiative when it has had ample opportunity. They have been so busy these last few weeks introducing one bill after another, indicating to us that we must sit here until midnight every night to pass the numerous bills that are so extremely important. Yet obviously Bill 160 was not an important issue for the government. They have chosen to use a private member's bill to put forward this initiative. To me that demonstrates a lack of concern for the workers in this province.

I suggest to the member that we will support this bill today. I believe it is absolutely essential that there be co-operation and consultation between employers and employees in this province. This extension is going to allow for consultation. It is going to allow for co-operation. Certainly that is what is necessary. I understand that negotiations are going to be resuming for the building trades in May of this year. Most of them probably will be finalized by September. I agree that more time is needed to resolve this issue and it needs to be resolved in a co-operative and consultative manner. I will certainly support it.

However, I will be introducing an amendment. I do not support the five-year extension. In talking to the groups, both employers and employees, I understand that a one-year extension would be quite reasonable since all of these negotiations are going to take place within a very short time and they can resolve this issue within one year as opposed to the five.

Mr Hope: One thing I ask you to do, Mr Speaker, is to pinch me to see if I am sleeping and dreaming about the Liberals and the Tories actually taking the side of the workers, especially hearing what came out of the member's mouth about Bill 162 and how they consulted.

Interjections.

Mr Hope: Mr Speaker, as you can see, the bears are getting a little hungry because they knew this was going to be coming out. It is important. When we talk about Bill 162, they talk about consultation. I remember being the consultation part. I want to move back members' memories memory a little.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. The member for Chatham-Kent has the floor. He has limited time, so please allow him the opportunity.

Mr Hope: I could go on for ever about what the Liberals did with Bill 162. I will refresh members' memories back to when workers took the doors of Queen's Park and it took the Leader of the Opposition to settle them down, because of the ungodly things the Liberals were doing out there with Bill 162.

We talk about making the changes. I was coming in here and I thought it was going to be a kinder, gentler place in discussing this major amendment that was being proposed. They criticize the government and ask why the Minister of Labour did not bring it in. Let me tell members what the opposition is doing with pieces of legislation today. They asked why we have to sit until midnight.

Well, if they would quit talking for two to three hours on issues, putting the public and members to sleep -- we have to deal with these issues and this is the most appropriate way of bringing it in so we can expedite it and make sure it is there on time for the benefit of the employees and the employers to discuss this major issue.

The funny thing is when I hear the member from the Liberal Party say that the member for Yorkview brings this in --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. Interjections are out of order, particularly when members are not in their seats. Please allow the member for Chatham-Kent to proceed with the debate.

Mr Hope: It is amazing when the bears are this wide awake in the morning. I thought this would be an important debate about what was going on. One of the important things I must add around this bill is that there was a comfortable feeling of the employees and the employers during Bill 162 hearings. An employer had put an objection across. What happened? A member who is now running for the Liberal leadership, the member for York Centre, automatically introduced something without any consultation around this.

An hon member: You're right out of this.

Mr Hope: He says I am right out of this. Let me tell you I have a non-partisan view -- it is from the Legislative Assembly research office -- that says in the briefing notes what happened around that whole thing. Nonpartisan is basically the issue.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please address the chair.

Mr Hope: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I am trying to get their attention to make sure they understand what is being discussed today.

One of the important things around this part of the bill is to add an ability to do it. The other

part is that Bill 162, as we all know, was a so-called solution to unsafe working conditions in workplaces. When they introduced it they said, "Let's not fix the workplaces, let's fix the workers' compensation." This was their attack on the working people of this province.

One of the unfortunate things is that they make reference to labour relations stuff. They did not hear the labour movement saying, "We withdraw our services." We participated in that. What these members are looking for is a compromise to make sure they can work it into the collective agreement. I guess they had a similar situation like this with the employer health tax. How was it compromised in that industry of that nature?

It is important. If I had my choice around this part, I would make sure the employers who have created unsafe working conditions for employees were responsible for a lot longer than one year. It is not the fault of the individual that he gets injured by an unsafe piece of equipment or an unsafe part of the workplace he is working in.

They ask why the Minister of Labour did not bring it in. The whole bill needs to be refined to make sure the protection of workers is there and to make sure the health and safety issues are addressed in that nature. I would like to go on for a long time, but I know a number of members, because of the remarks being made -- but one of the things that is very important --

Mr Offer: Here we go.

Mr Hope: I am going to speak a little softly so they do not have to yell so much across and maybe everybody will be able to hear what they have to say.

Interjection.

Mr Hope: It would be nice? Okay, I will keep it down to a low roar.

One of the important things we are trying to establish here is a mechanism in place that both the employers and the trade unions work out a compromise deal that would be beneficial to both. I question the amendments the Conservatives have put forward saying they need only one year because negotiations are coming up. Are we pushing them and forcing them into it or should it be done in a compromise? If they give them until 1997 and they do it in one year, then 1997 falls out the door, we will not need it.

Around these multi-employer fashions of discussions, it is important because there are a lot of workplaces out there that are not big corporations and we work around these programs to make sure that we can provide excellent benefits for individuals. But why does it have to be on the backs of the workers, who have not created the unsafe working conditions, to pay for the workers' compensation for one year? I have to ask that question.

Mr Offer: You speak as though we're against the bill. We're in favour of the bill.

Mr Hope: The heckling keeps coming across. I am in favour of the bill. I am even going to go one step further and say there should be a total revamp of the Workers' Compensation Act to make sure it is beneficial to all the people who are injured and accident victims. That is where the important

part is. Now I would like to hear the Liberals and the Tories stand up and say the same thing. No, because their friends are on the other side.

Mr B. Murdoch: You said you would be quiet.

Mr Hope: I said I would be quiet. Good point. I will bring it back down. Seeing the time that is there, I am going to make sure my other colleagues will be able to participate. I will be supporting the bill and I will do everything possible to make sure it is there to help the workers.

Mr Cordiano: There is really only one issue with respect to this proposal today, the private member's bill being advanced by the member for Yorkview. I must say to the member for Yorkview that he is doing the right thing. He is bringing forward this on principle and I think he is well aware that everyone is in favour of this. No one is against it, but there is really one issue.

What it comes down to is the government is unconcerned, at very best unaware, which we know it is not. The minister does not intend to bring forward a government bill, which is the only thing that can advance this in an expeditious fashion to ensure the deadline is met. That is the end of the issue right there, the substance of it. Nothing further need be said about this.

The fact that we are dealing with a private member's bill today demonstrates only one thing: that the government does not see this as a priority. Therefore, had the member for Yorkview -- at best the member for Yorkview was duped into this by bringing forward a private member's bill which he knows full well may not see the light of day.

Many a well-intentioned private member's bill --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many conversations going on. The member for Etobicoke West, please.

Mr Cordiano: Getting back to what I said, the fact is that the government knows full well that the only thing that would see this bill go through is a government bill that is initiated in this House, brought forward into this House by the Minister of Labour, that would see the deadline met, extended for a year, two years, whatever the period required to get agreement from all parties concerned.

No one is debating the substance of this issue. No one is debating the principles on which this is being initiated. What is in question here is the manner in which this is being proposed. In fact, I would go one step further and say that the government does not care about this, because it does not intend to do anything about it. We would like to ask the Minister of Labour, and it might not be a bad idea to ask the Minister of Labour directly, does he intend to extend the deadline? Is he about to do this within the short period of time that remains in this session to accomplish that?

It is a simple question which requires a simple answer. If the answer is no, then we are justified in saying the government does not care whether this deadline expires at the end of this year. That is the end of the story. There is no other issue here.

The fact that the member for Yorkview brought forward this initiative speaks to his concern for workers. But I must say to the member for Yorkview, as well as his colleagues who are sitting in the back benches today -- and I see no cabinet minister here in the House this morning, which simply indicates that the government had no real intention of bringing this bill forward -- it is simply a matter of bringing forward a process in this House which we know will succeed if the government intends to do the very thing that it says it wants to do.

By going through a private member's hoopla here, we are just simply not going to get the bill through. It is not going to result in the extension of the deadline. Is that not, after all, what we want to accomplish? The members in the back benches can sit there feeling as uncomfortable as they like but, quite frankly, none of us on this side are suggesting for a moment that the extension not be granted. We fully support this, so there is no reason in the world that the government should not bring forward legislation which will extend the process we are talking about in terms of the agreement which needs to be reached.

Let's see the minister bring the bill forward. There is still one week in which to do this. There is no reason in the world why the government cannot do this if it really wants to. That is the issue: Does the government really want to?

The member should not hide behind a private member's bill. I would say to the member for Yorkview that he should not try to be the person who prevents all the criticism from flowing to the government because they failed to do the right thing, which is to extend the deadline. If he is going to stand up as cannon fodder for the government, so be it. But he should not lead other people into thinking this is going to be government legislation when in fact everyone knows that it will simply not result in that being accomplished.

Mr Runciman: I have a few minutes to participate in this debate. I want to indicate that we are supporting the measure, reluctantly. We have some very serious concerns in respect to the process which have already been talked about. I want to put a number of things on the record, though.

The member for Chatham-Kent was complaining, essentially, about the long speeches and the time it is taking to get business through this House, talking about three-hour speeches wasting the time of the public. We are having to sit till midnight now. I want to say that in my view, they ain't seen nothing yet, because I think we are faced with an unprecedented situation in this province.

We have an admitted liar sitting in the cabinet of the province of Ontario: a liar and a slanderer. I want to say that we are not going to allow it to occur. The opposition parties are united in this matter.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I must apologize; I did not hear. I understand, if you said anything -- order, please. The member is an honourable member, and if he has said anything which offends this House, he will withdraw it.

Mr Runciman: I simply said what a cabinet minister has already agreed with and has accepted responsibility for, and, especially since you did not hear it, I am not going to apologize.

The member for Chatham-Kent also made disparaging remarks about the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in respect to union workers and their concerns for workers across this province. I want to say that I take offence at that, and I have a lot of difficulty with any member in the socialist government --

Mr O'Connor: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask you to check Hansard and have him withdraw that remark, because it is clearly on Hansard, unparliamentary language.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. All members in this House -- order, please. The member for Oriole, order, please. In reply to the member for Durham-York, all members in this House are honourable. I have asked the member for Leeds-Grenville to withdraw whatever he said that I happened not to have heard. I take his word.

Mr Runciman: I appreciate your intervention. I wanted to say, in respect to the NDP suggesting that it is the only political party in this province that speaks on behalf of workers, that is nothing less than ludicrous. What it does is it speaks for union bosses; it does not speak for workers across this province.

Members simply have to look at the rhetoric at the Ontario Federation of Labour convention, where we talked about even tougher labour legislation in this province where we are losing thousands and thousands and thousands of manufacturing jobs which will never appear in this province again, or look at what is happening with General Motors in Oshawa now, where there may be 3,500 jobs lost.

The labour leaders in this province are not prepared to sit down and compromise and adopt common-sense approaches to worker-management relationships in this province. Those are the people this government is representing; those are the people who are costing thousands and thousands of jobs in this province. So members opposite should not get up with these phoney arguments saying they are representing the workers. This government is not acting in the best interests of workers in this province and neither are its union bleeder chums.

If members want to talk about the Workers' Compensation Board, we support a complete revamping of the Workers' Compensation Act. We have only to look at the significant debt, the unfunded liability -- very significant indeed. We have to take a look at what this government is doing right now. It is apparently not concerned. We look at the funding through the health organization set up by the Solicitor General where everybody's relatives and every union boss's relatives have been hired. Who is paying for that? The employers of this province, through assessments of WCB. We do not see much being done about that. We see the WCB renting a big building downtown --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Order, please.

Ms S. Murdock: First of all, I guess as members of this House -- I certainly know on a personal level that when I ran, I talked about all the programs that we as New Democrats intended to try to implement. But I know that once we got elected and once I got elected, I represented all of the constituents in my riding. I did not represent just workers; I did not represent just employers.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go on that way. It is your time.

Ms S. Murdock: Anyway, I represented all of my constituents, and that includes both workers and employers. I have never espoused that I represent only workers. I represent everyone, and on that basis I want to say that the other thing I thought of when I came down here as a new member -- probably somewhat naïve in the process of how this place works -- I understood that private members' hour was something that was worth while and important. In fact, one of the complaints has been that this hour has been rather ill-used in terms of the kinds of things that have been brought forward.

Having said that, I think this bill brought forward today by the member for Yorkview is well worth it, and unfortunately, due to the way things work in this place, it will be speedier going through the private members' process than going through the regular process of bringing forth legislation into this House.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga North, order.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. I would ask members to please refrain from holding conversations. The member for Sudbury.

Ms S. Murdock: Unfortunately, the way the system works in this place, it will be speedier going through the private members' hour process, particularly since both parties opposite have stated here that they will be supporting it.

I think there has to be a history lesson in this House today, and the history lesson is on Bill 162 hearings. That is the history lesson. I am somewhat astounded to have heard some of the things that I heard this morning, because this was told to the previous government during the Bill 162 hearings.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. I would ask for your co-operation. I can hardly hear anything in this chair. Please refrain from heckling. The member for Mississauga North, please refrain from heckling. The member for Sudbury.

Ms S. Murdock: Many of the mobile workers in the construction industry -- because this is the industry that is most affected -- will often have more than one employer in a given year. As a consequence, contributions to their benefits packages are made by more than one employer.

It is unfortunate that some of our members in this House have not grown up. However, given that, the history lesson that I want to teach today is that in the Bill 162 hearings that went through this province --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. The member for Sudbury.

Ms S. Murdock: I just want to remind all of the members that the Bill 162 hearings clearly stated that this was going to be a problem, that January 1, 1992, was too soon. Frankly, it is unfortunate that we have to bring in an amendment this way, but all we are doing is extending it.

I would remind all the people who are watching this or sitting at home and wondering what is going on that it was not our government that caused this problem; it was the previous government. I would like everyone to remember that.

Mr Perruzza: First of all, I would like to thank the honourable member for Yorkview for bringing forward this very important piece of legislation for our review. It is something we definitely need to talk a little about.

It is quite evident that the emotions this bill has elicited from all sides of the House are indicative of the kind of scenario that workers across this province are faced with now, particularly in relation to the Workers' Compensation Board.

I do not have enough time this morning to be able to cover the wide range, the entire gamut of the issues that relate to the Workers' Compensation Board; however, it is noteworthy to mention that we did not create the mess that exists now at the Workers' Compensation Board.

We have, however, taken some steps to correct some of the deficiencies and some of the difficulties that workers are now experiencing there. We have appointed a new leadership, who have taken on their jobs very responsibly and are planning to correct some of the deficiencies that are inherent within the system.

What we are talking about today was a late amendment added to Bill 162. I believe it was called the Ellis-Don amendment; if I were a Liberal here today I would be ashamed because Peterson's brother-in-law wrote his own ticket and the amendment was named after him. We are here today trying to correct yet another terrible mistake perpetrated by the former Liberal government on the workers across this province.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please refrain from making these noises.

Mr Mammoliti: I am glad to see that everybody is supporting the bill. Now it is time to vote for the bill and I am hoping I will get that unanimous support I asked for in my opening comments. I am pleased to pass on a message as well from all those labour leaders, and this is coming from their mouths: "Please, please forget your feelings towards the NDP government. Forget your feelings. Try to contain yourselves and please give us unanimous support on this bill. It has to be passed before the new year."

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Mammoliti: Those, honourable members, are the words of the members they have spoken to who belong to those unions. Members may be yelling and screaming, and to a degree I can understand that because I do my fair share of yelling and screaming in this place as well. But I do it at the appropriate times. I do it when I feel it is necessary. It is wonderful that members are taking their frustrations out on us. Perhaps members may feel a little insecure, I do not know, but do not take it out on this bill and do not take it out on those workers. I am hoping members will support it, but I see madness. I see people screaming and yelling. Do not take it out on the workers. We need it.

Mr Curling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Should not the Minister of Labour be here now?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Eves has moved resolution 35.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

The House divided on Mr Mammoliti's motion for second reading of Bill 160, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 58

Abel, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carter, Christopherson, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Eves, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marland, Martin, Mathyssen, McClelland, McLean, Mills, Morrow, Murdoch, B., Murdock, S., O'Connor, Offer, Perruzza, Phillips, G., Poole, Runciman, Tilson, Villeneuve, Ward, B., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood.

Nays -- 3

Arnott, Jordan, Stockwell.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to committee of the whole House.

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to go to third reading.

Some hon members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent. The majority of the House not being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill is referred to committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification: Is there a way of finding out who is opposed to this?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, on a matter that has just gone through, which was very important to us on the opposition side: What rule is it when the Minister of Labour does not see fit to come and vote in favour of this type of matter?

The Deputy Speaker: All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1215.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr McClelland: Brant-Haldimand is a prime example of how the NDP government is treating issues of environmental quality in the province of Ontario. Wetlands and other lands which deserve protection, such as areas of natural and scientific interest and regionally identified environmentally sensitive areas, continue to be impacted upon.

The conservation authority budget has been reduced by interim cuts, despite the government's promise that this would happen only if all other transfer funds were also to be cut. The discovery of illegally disposed of biomedical waste and other materials has raised concerns, not only on the Six Nations Indian Reserve but also in other parts of the province, as the spectre of midnight dumping as a reality is driven home.

Concern is increasingly being raised and expressed about surface water quality in the rivers and streams and the quality of ground water, which is a very important source of drinking water.

In the adjacent riding of Brantford, despite firm promises from the local NDP member that he would have Mohawk Lake cleaned up, nothing has happened. In Norfolk, several large developments are planned in sensitive areas, and although the issue was raised in the House, the NDP government has failed to declare a provincial interest in the Long Point area, despite its being a UNESCO biosphere.

The Liberal caucus is very concerned about these issues and the NDP government's inactivity. Tomorrow I will be meeting with a range of interest groups in Brant-Haldimand, together with Mr Ron Eddy, the Liberal candidate in the by-election that will held whenever the Premier finds the courage to face the people. With no elected representative in this House, it is much more difficult for the citizens of Brant-Haldimand to have their environmental and other important concerns heard and subsequently acted upon.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Eves: I have received several letters and telephone calls from constituents who are concerned about the proposed labour legislation.

Jonathan Shaw, general manager of Shaw-Almex Industries, has made several points in correspondence to me which are quite alarming. Mr Shaw states that he is very seriously contemplating relocating his business to the United States or Europe. He goes on to say:

"If many of these measures are adopted, the only possible message being sent to business (who drives the very economy on which we all live and survive) is that the Ontario government does not want our business or our co-operation, and the direct result will be a substantial loss of Ontario jobs! And this fact will rest squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Industry and the Premier."

I also received correspondence from the president of the Parry Sound Area Chamber of Commerce. I want to quote directly from her letter because she explains the concerns of constituents quite aptly. She says:

"At this time in the Parry Sound area, every effort must be made to maintain existing manufacturing jobs. The incentives offered by US states encourage competitiveness and prosperity. These current proposals raise the cost and risk of doing business in Ontario. Northern Ontario has been devastated by a variety of economic factors which have left the north in a deteriorating crisis situation.... With Ontario still reeling from the recession, this is not time to upset the balance between management and labour. Please urge the government not to act on these labour relations proposals."

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 224

Ms S. Murdock: I rise with pride because the Copper Cliff Royal Canadian Legion Branch 224 is celebrating its 60th anniversary today. This branch is named after a man by the name of Mr R. L. Beatty, who started off as a clerk in a grubby little mining town without any sidewalks or anything at the time, the town of Copper Cliff, and over the years grew and developed until he became the president of the International Nickel Co of Canada, at the time it was called that, before it become Inco.

They named their branch after him because of the contribution he made to the community and how much work he did with people and families and the workers in that town.

Copper Cliff is a small community just outside the larger community of Sudbury. It is very much interested in what it does and how it keeps itself.

The Royal Canadian Legion has done much work in maintaining the community interests. It keeps its people together. Tonight they are having celebrations at the Royal Canadian Legion Hall, which is right next to the arena. I hope everyone in Sudbury plans to attend and help Branch 224 celebrate its 60 years of operation. I congratulate them and wish them to have many, many more.

ST JEAN DE BREBEUF SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Curling: Joining us in the members' gallery today are a number of members of the St Jean de Brebeuf Parent-Teacher Association from my riding. Also present is the local separate school trustee, Mr Harold Adams.

These parents are here because of their concern for the education, safety and welfare of their children. They are here to ask the Minister of Education to ask this government to put an end to the substandard conditions that students and teachers at St Jean de Brebeuf Separate School are compelled to put up with each day because of overcrowding that has reached a critical level.

The current building was built to accommodate 275 students. The current enrolment is 479 students. Washroom facilities are inadequate and much of the outside recreational area is occupied by portables. This situation can only get worse, as the northeast part of Scarborough is one of the fastest-growing areas in Metro, if not in the province. We can, in the next few years, expect to be the home of many hundreds of school-age children.

We know that Ontario is in the midst of a serious recession and that provincial coffers are being stretched, but can we as a society afford to shortchange our children? I appeal to the Minister of Education to look carefully at the very real needs of our growing community when next year's capital funding allocations are being decided.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Education, who seems unconcerned about the confusion and uneasiness that exist around the province concerning religious education.

Last night, approximately 600 people converged on the Simcoe county public school board council chambers because they feel the NDP government is attempting to steal Christmas from them.

School boards, principals, teachers and students are extremely anxious about the celebration of Christmas this year. This anxiety is the direct result of a government and a minister that sit quietly as school boards, principals and teachers are left to interpret what is religious indoctrination as it applies to Christmas concerts and Christmas decorations. Trustees and parents who gathered at Barrie last night heard the story of a banner being torn down from a school in Simcoe county because it carried the words "Merry Christmas."

All this has resulted from the Minister of Education and this NDP government. They have abrogated their responsibilities. The minister has had a memo on his desk that clarifies the status of Christmas concerts, but he refuses to sign it. Perhaps I should remind the minister that there are only 13 days left until Christmas. The minister has transformed that favourite Christmas song "Silent Night" into "Silent Months."

I urge this government to clarify this issue and return Christmas to the parents, students and children of Simcoe county and all across Ontario.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Winninger: I rise in the House today to recognize those individuals, those activists for fairness and equality, who stepped forward to make their views known at the Employment Equity Commission public consultation meeting in London yesterday and the day before. The holiday season is a time when our thoughts traditionally recognize the fundamental equality of humankind. I am excited that this sentiment was clearly and directly expressed and acknowledged at the employment equity hearings in London, where the constituency I am proud to represent, London South, is located.

We have heard much about the need for economic recovery in Ontario. Real economic recovery is a result of employment equity for all members of our province. Women, visible minorities, persons with disabilities and native persons have an equal and decisive role with all Ontarians in learning, training or retraining, and working to build an economy strong with our diverse skills and perspectives.

Commissioner Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré reported there was general support for mandatory employment equity at the London hearings. I praise the fairminded supporters of employment equity in London. Their strength and goodwill may give us a new twist on an old saying and we will all recognize that what is good for people is good for business.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Phillips: Yesterday we got the news that another business in Ontario may be closing its doors and moving to the United States. Canadian Auto Workers officials said the Oshawa Buick Regal plant may be closing its doors by the end of 1994-95, leaving about 3,800 workers out of work.

On December 4 in this House the Premier was asked by my leader, the member for St Catharines, if he could guarantee that the people working in the automotive industry in St Catharines would still have their jobs at the end of his term. The Premier said at that time that he was working very closely with the automotive industry in encouraging and allowing for new investment in Ontario.

It is clear from recent events that the Premier is operating on a completely different wavelength from the major business leaders in this province. He has not been able to convince the automotive industry that Ontario is the place for future investment. In fact, this government has gone a long way towards driving business out of Ontario and possibly leaving another 3,800 people out of work.

On December 2, Ken Harrigan, the chairman of Ford Motor Co of Canada Ltd, said: "Queen's Park is doing everything possible to put roadblocks in the way of economic recovery. Not one NDP policy initiative is aimed at stimulating economic growth and competitiveness within the province."

This is the reality of the state of business in Ontario. When is the Premier going to say to the 3,800 workers in Oshawa that he will move to protect their jobs? Will he assure them that they have nothing to fear? What is the Premier going to do to ensure that the people of Ontario have a bright economic future?

CREDIT COUNSELLING

Mr Tilson: I recently received a copy of a letter to the editor from a Mr William Day of Alliston in the riding of Simcoe West. Mr Day very ably expressed the concerns of a large number of my constituents with regard to the decision to cease funding to the credit counselling program. I would like to read his letter into the record.

The letter is to the editor and it says:

"Two weeks ago, the Ontario government announced that it will cease to fund one of our social programs called credit counselling. This program was initiated 25 years ago by the PC government and has since been endorsed by subsequent PC and Liberal governments. The funding is equally matched by our federal government. The pullout by the current NDP government terminates further federal obligation. The program dies! The repercussions of this demise are serious and multifaceted.

"Most families are in debt to a greater or lesser extent, usually based on relative income. Due to the current recession and to free trade, more businesses are failing here in Ontario or are simply moving out of province. As a result, the number of people left unemployed has swamped the unemployment insurance and welfare programs. In many cases people cannot bail out of their financial commitments because the value of their property is less than that which they initially paid. Programs such as credit counselling allow people to reach a realistic compromise during periods of hardship in such a way to ensure their self-dignity and self-esteem.

"The side effects of being in an untenable position of debt can be devastating to the family unit and to society. Family stability weakens. Antisocial behaviours ensue: alcoholism, child and spousal abuse, impaired driving, assaults, and destruction of public and private property.

"The pullout by the provincial government at this time is shortsighted and irresponsible."

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS

Mr Malkowski: I would like to respond to the statement made by the member for Mississauga South on cochlear implants last Monday. With respect to the W5 interview, my views on cochlear implants have clearly remained on the editing room floor. I do not oppose government funding on cochlear implant research or development, nor do I oppose the surgery as an option for deaf adults. I would also like to clarify that cochlear implant surgery is not even considered by the medical profession as an option for hard-of-hearing people.

During the Ministry of Health's time of consultations, I presented the views of the deaf that had not previously been considered. I recommended then and continue to invite the deaf, deafened, hard-of-hearing and consumer groups to participate in this process. As a member of the provincial Parliament with responsibilities for disability issues, I feel this is my duty.

I would like to read to members a portion of the Canadian Association of the Deaf's position paper on cochlear implants, one of the views which I presented to the Ministry of Health.

"The Canadian Association of the Deaf recognizes that cochlear implants may be of assistance to some adults, particularly those who have been deafened later in life. However, we urge caution on the question of implanting the device in young children.

"Cochlear implants do not restore hearing; they only translate certain environmental sounds into electrical impulses.

"There is no proof that the device improves the educational achievements of the deaf children."

The World Federation of the Deaf, which is affiliated with the United Nations, supports CAD's position in this matter. My own personal view is in favour of providing a full range of information and options for the deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Hon F. Wilson: Listening to the views and concerns of the people of Ontario is a vital part of how this government creates public policy. Our willingness to listen has been demonstrated by initiatives we have undertaken in areas such as rent protection, family support and the employee wage protection program. Members of the public shared their opinions with us in these areas and helped to shape government policy. We know the value of public consultation, and this weekend we will take a big step forward in public participation in government.

People will be invited to leave their name and address so ministries and commissions can send out information on topics of interest to the callers. They will be provided with background information to help them get more involved in the issues, including information on how to participate in dozens of public consultation meetings throughout the province. This service allows us to hear from all Ontarians, no matter where they live. We are continuing to provide the public access to the government we have always believed in.

This program will require no new money. Funds for the program are drawn from the communication budgets of the ministries and commissions involved. What is more, money is being saved. Setting up this service will cost about $977,000. Additional charges for long-distance calls will depend on the volume of inquiries. Providing similar access for each of the 13 consultations separately would cost several million dollars. As an added benefit, advertising these consultations together makes it easier for people to get involved in more than one subject.

The Ontario 1992 consultation process concentrates on a balance of economic and social issues. Some of these have been announced and are under way, including employment equity, fair taxes, the 1992 budget and waste reduction. Others will be under way shortly.

Public meetings will be held across the province on many of these issues, but our new phone-in service is a critical part of our consultation efforts. By just picking up a telephone anyone in Ontario has the opportunity to find out information on many vital issues, and then has the chance to ask questions or express views. That is what true consultation is all about.

I would like to acknowledge the valued help of my legislative colleagues the member for Niagara South and the member for Hamilton Centre in bringing these consultations together in a working committee before turning the project over to my ministry for implementation.

I am certain members on both sides of the House will find this a valuable service for their constituents. I look forward to working with all members to ensure Ontarians enjoy the benefits of this program.

RESPONSES

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Mr Bradley: I thought the minister was going to rise to announce that the Ministry of Transportation and all its employees and jobs promised would indeed be going to St Catharines, but it is simply a reannouncement of what we already exposed to the House, that is, this special consultation committee to enhance the NDP government.

What is most interesting is the first thing I saw when I looked at the back of this: "For more information, contact" -- you guessed it -- "John Piper, 325-7644," the person who orchestrates the entire NDP government, the Premier's whereabouts and so on.

We recognize the committee that is going to co-ordinate this is made up of NDP operatives. We finally got the secretary of the NDP off the committee after we exposed that in the House, but all the people who work for the ministers who are NDP patronage appointments will of course now be in a position to make these decisions.

I suggest that instead of what they have, the telephone number should be 1-800-NDP-SHAM. That would be an appropriate number because I notice you have to give your name and address if you want to get a response to this. They want your name and address. That fits in with what we found on the secret memo we got from the chief government whip, which says, "They should be keeping lists and using names creatively. This is an opportunity to establish new support bases across Ontario." It also says, "The participating ministries must agree to resource the project."

Therefore, "If there is other vital information that is needed to the people of Ontario, we'll take the money away from that so that we can have people phone in and increase the lists so that Jill Marzetti will be able to send even more fund-raising letters out to the people of Ontario." We can bet that all of them will be there.

We know this consultation kickoff was held at the NDP provincial council, so this is not particularly new. We know it is based on the approach to the budget hearings of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs last summer, where they hired Alpha Consultants to bring to the various committee hearings people who were favourable to the government position -- the only people in Ontario who were, but they happened to show up at that particular meeting.

This is a seemingly redundant service that is going to cost $1 million. It is not going to create any new jobs in Ontario. Everybody has got a job over there in any event. It will perhaps improve the NDP membership list. I can imagine those full-page ads that will be talking about: "Life is Good, Ontario. Preserve It, Conserve It."

My last comment on this is that I do not know why they are even going through this process, because the Premier is ordering polls to be paid for with taxpayers' money and then he keeps the results of the polls secret to the NDP caucus. I do not know why they are going through this sham in the first place. I am sure our Treasury critic will be able to help us out.

Mr Phillips: I would like to comment on the announcement. As my leader pointed out, it is part of the overall communications plan that we have already seen. In terms of saving money, though, I think we should all recognize that the government will be placing some very expensive ads. The Fair Tax Commission, part of this consultation central co-ordinating committee program, has already hired 15 to 25 community animators. They are being trained today at the Guild Inn. What will these 15 to 25 people do? They will be out in the community animating. That is clearly an additional expense.

The Fair Tax Commission also said it is important that all the parties involved in the community education program be connected by computer. There is an entire computer network being set up to work with these community animators. As my leader asked, who is co-ordinating the community animators? Alpha Consultants. Who are Alpha Consultants? We are not all sure. I see from the briefing document here, "Alpha Consultants Inc, 2 Second Street, Ward Island."

Frankly, what we are looking at here from the CCC committee is clearly a major propaganda move by the government. This is the first step: $1 million worth of phones, 20 or 25 community animators being trained today and heading out into the community, a whole computer network being set up so they can communicate on a daily basis. This is not a money-saving program; it is a major propaganda program by the government. I ask this government to take a very close look at it.

Mr Stockwell: Has this government no shame? Have they no shame that they could sit on this side of the House over the many years they did and make outlandish complaints about previous governments? They pull this kind of cheap theatrical political stunt and they do not expect the public or the opposition to see through this? They do not call them NDP hacks. They do not call these 20 or 25 people NDP hacks. They call them animators. They invent names for hacks who are going to go in and set up a computer system to do their best to resurrect this collection of socialists.

A million dollars to boost the government's image. A million dollars of taxpayers' money to help this motley crew boost its image around the province, all in the name of consultation. Now the people of Ontario can get up-to-date news on which cabinet minister is going down today; it is a 1-800 telephone number.

We have no consultation on the government's energy policy. We have no consultation on the government's day care policy. We have no consultation on the government's housing policy. All we get is a congratulatory note sent to the government whip and the member for Hamilton Centre about the hard work they have performed working on this committee.

That is all we get here today, and they left out the president of the NDP. They forgot to thank that person, and I understand she worked very hard to ensure government members got all the propaganda in place, all the animators in place, and they found the money within their budget, the $1 million, when they could not find more than 2% for those who need it in this province.

This party has fallen from any principle, from the ideology they had on this side of the House. They have fallen like no party has fallen before, and this is a sad public attempt to steal taxpayers' money to prop up this government and its sagging public image.

I do not believe they can stand before this opposition today and pass this off as government consultation. They are going to keep the names and addresses of those people who phoned. They are going to keep their addresses and they are probably going to mail them out requests for funding for their party on its own.

It is no wonder we are in debt. We would never stoop this low if we were in government. We would never stoop this low, to take $1 million of taxpayers' money to prop up their own party position.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: The seals are acting up today. It is clear there was not a good fish feed this morning. It is very clear that this government is now reaching all new lows in its efforts to prop up its sagging popularity.

On this side of the House we will have no part of this $1-million expenditure. It is a waste of taxpayers' money, and it is a sad day for the socialists when they will stoop this low to prop up their sagging public image.

Interjections.

QUESTION PERIOD

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. After question period on Wednesday, November 27, 1991, the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) raised a point of order concerning the nature of ministerial responsibilities in relation to oral question period and a minister's ability to refer a question to another minister.

Dealing with the first point, members will know that questions directed to a minister of the crown must relate to the minister's official responsibilities as conferred by statute or otherwise assig