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

December 1, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION / LÉGISLATION MUNICIPALE

WORLD AIDS DAY

HOSPICE ORILLIA

ST MARY'S CATHEDRAL

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

EASTERN ONTARIO ISSUES SUMMIT

DON VALLEY BRICKWORKS

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

INVESTIGATION AT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

KARLA HOMOLKA

SALE OF AIRCRAFT

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRE

SERVICES FOR THE HEARING-IMPAIRED

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

TAXATION

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

TAXATION

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

TAXATION

CASINO GAMBLING

TAXATION

TAX EXEMPTION

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

GAMBLING

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

ALL-WOOD LAND CLEARING LTD ACT, 1993

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION / LÉGISLATION MUNICIPALE

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): The Minister of Municipal Affairs was good enough to provide me with a number of amendments that would be part of Bill 77, but the question I'm asking today of the minister is, will the minister introduce second reading of Bill 77 so as to give the members a chance to debate Bill 77? I would call it the most important bill concerning Ottawa-Carleton at the present time.

I know that the minister is anxious -- I hope he's anxious -- to introduce second reading, but time is very short. We're supposed to leave this place next Thursday. I hope that the minister will follow through with his amendments and provide us with the opportunity to debate those amendments.

Je crois que le ministre des Affaires municipales en a la responsabilité, maintenant qu'il a présenté un nombre suffisant de modifications concernant la Loi 77, la loi qui va déterminer le futur du gouvernement régional d'Ottawa-Carleton. Alors, j'invite encore une fois le ministre des Affaires municipales à présenter, en deuxième lecture, la Loi 77 pour qu'elle soit débattue --

L'hon Evelyn Gigantes (ministre du Logement) : Pour combien de temps ?

M. Grandmaître : Pour combien de temps ? Le ministre du Logement me demande combien de temps ? Présentez la deuxième lecture et nous allons considérer le Règlement 77.

WORLD AIDS DAY

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): As Health critic for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, I urge all members of the Legislature to join with me in recognizing World AIDS Day. The importance of World AIDS Day is that it brings home to all of us in Ontario that AIDS is a global problem of epic proportions. While 11,000 Canadians are living with AIDS, a staggering 14 million people suffer from the disease worldwide. By the year 2000, there will be 30 million to 40 million infections of the HIV virus on this planet.

What the World Health Organization is doing, in conjunction with the Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research and the Fife House Foundation, is making us aware that AIDS affects each and every one of us. We must redouble our efforts to combat this lethal killer by both beefing up our educational efforts and finding a cure for a disease that does not discriminate between sexes or age. The warning signs indicate that we must not continue to hide from the reality of AIDS.

Of global AIDS cases, 70% involve heterosexuals. The World Health Organization states that 50% of those infected with HIV have become infected while they were between the ages of 15 and 24 years. On a chilling note, a recent study done at Laurentian University found no relationship between young people's knowledge of AIDS and their behaviour.

If we are to stem the growing deadly tide of AIDS, we must band together to meet this imposing challenge. On World AIDS Day, I urge everyone across Ontario and Canada and throughout every corner of the world to work towards the common goal of conquering this killer disease.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My statement, like Mr Wilson's today, is on World AIDS Day. Today is World AIDS Day, a day set aside each year to raise public awareness about HIV and AIDS. It is estimated that by 1994, 17 million people worldwide will have been infected with HIV. In Canada, there are about 8,000 reported cases of AIDS. Ontario accounts for approximately 40% of the AIDS cases across Canada, while Metro Toronto has about 50% of the AIDS cases in this province.

Anyone can contract this deadly disease. In fact, the number of AIDS cases in Canada attributed to heterosexual activity continues to rise at a faster rate than for any other risk category, and the number of women with HIV infection is increasing and now accounts for more than 10% of all new positive cases in Ontario. Sadly, despite these alarming figures, indifference and misunderstanding about this disease is still pervasive, particularly among heterosexuals.

Initiatives such as the Red Ribbon Campaign, which has been going on this week, aim to enlighten the public's attitude and understanding of AIDS and HIV. Since last Friday, hundreds of volunteers have been selling red ribbons to raise funds for AIDS research and for supportive housing for people living with AIDS and HIV. Although for the most

part I encountered generosity and positive responses when I sold ribbons last week, the hostile response of one individual reminded me of the urgent need for campaigns such as this one.

Today we wear red ribbons to increase the public's awareness about AIDS and HIV, to remember those who have lost their lives to AIDS and to strengthen our personal commitment to combating this deadly disease.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I wish to join with Mr Wilson and Mr Marchese with respect to this day as World AIDS Day. The World Health Organization's global program on AIDS has chosen the theme Time to Act for today's events. A countless number of volunteers have chosen to act by collecting money in the Red Ribbon Campaign.

Volunteers like Margaret Madigan, one of my constituents, spent the last six days giving their time, often braving subzero weather to make the Red Ribbon Campaign a success. Margaret will be collecting donations in the Macdonald Block foyer today, and I urge everyone to get a ribbon from her or one of the hundreds of other volunteers I'm sure everyone has noticed on most streets over the past week.

On a personal note, it is time to act. I had, unfortunately, to attend the funeral on Saturday of another person who died of AIDS. The time to act is now. I hope the government will move very soon on a catastrophic illness funding policy.

All we're getting in the documents we're seeing is that they're working on it, and the time to act has long since passed. I hope too that it will consider adding nutritional supplements to the formulary to allow people with HIV and AIDS adequate resources to cope.

The government has talked too about supportive housing, and yet the Homewood co-op in my riding was refused consideration for funding for supportive housing that would have included 25% of its tenants being people living with HIV and AIDS. I call on the government to reconsider that decision.

HOSPICE ORILLIA

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns Hospice Orillia and the many volunteers who are dedicated to eliminating the pain and suffering of the terminally ill.

The concept of hospice care has a long and proud history, but in its modern form, originated in Britain in the 1950s, it quickly spread to other countries in Europe and around the world before becoming increasingly popular in North America during the 1970s.

Hospice Orillia is a community hospice whereby the patient is generally located in the home, deriving comfort and support from professionals, family, friends and volunteers. Hospice Orillia is based on the principle that dying patients require at least as much care and attention as patients who are expected to recover. The focus of this care is on the patient and the family, their right to expect that everything possible will be done to meet their physical and spiritual needs and their right to participate in decisions regarding the illness, its treatment and the circumstances surrounding the final days of living and dying.

A growing number of terminally ill people and their families have found comfort and support in the hospice movement, which is committed to helping patients and their relatives confront death calmly, with dignity and with as little pain as possible. Hospice Orillia is responding to one of the deepest needs in all of us, the need to feel that when our time to die comes, we will be able to do so in conditions that reduce the physical suffering and spiritual anguish to the minimum.

Last Thursday, I had the opportunity to speak to Hospice Orillia and congratulate their volunteers on the fine job they're doing within our community.

ST MARY'S CATHEDRAL

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Next Wednesday, St Mary's Cathedral in Kingston will celebrate a new

chapter in its 150-year history. Five years ago, this local landmark was falling down. Its limestone walls were cracking and chunks of stone were falling from its tower. But next Wednesday, the church congregation will hold a ceremony to mark the cathedral's successful restoration.

The ambitious $6-million restoration project was made possible by the generosity of the people in the archdiocese of Kingston and the greater Kingston community and by a grant of more than $800,000 from the province of Ontario.

Unfortunately, St Mary's has not been the only church in our community requiring major repairs. Many of Kingston's impressive limestone churches were constructed in a building boom around the 1840s, when Kingston was the capital of Canada, and have come due at the same time for restoration.

I'm pleased to say that our government has demonstrated its commitment to heritage preservation by providing funds for the repair of these churches. We have given grants not only to St Mary's, but to St James Anglican Church, Sydenham Street United Church, St Paul's Anglican Church and the Church of the Good Thief in Portsmouth village.

These grants have created dozens of jobs and helped to preserve Kingston's historic character, a source of great pride to Kingstonians and also the foundation of our local tourist industry.

This financial commitment, combined with our government's proposed heritage legislation, is a clear indication that we know Ontario's social, economic and cultural future depends crucially on our respect for the past.

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Since the Ontario government has proclaimed its interest in capital projects and infrastructure renewal, I have a suggestion for the Rae administration.

Although the Premier has chopped $300 million from the capital works budget, while styling himself as Captain Infrastructure, perhaps the Premier will restore that amount and allocate $32 million to Niagara College to enable it to implement its master plan and commence construction of a project that will create about 300 person-years of work plus 60 ongoing, full-time jobs at the college.

A new St Catharines facility and an updated Welland campus will contribute substantially to higher employment for the peninsula, increased competitiveness for our employers and long-term improvements in skills for Niagara's labour force. Replacement of the temporary and worn-out buildings will help the college to better serve more students and clients and finally move from three temporary buildings and a decrepit old factory into modern educational facilities.

Niagara College has provided an opportunity for thousands of people, young and old, to receive post-secondary education and for so many in our province to be retrained for new employment positions.

We owe it to our residents to provide a modern, up-to-date educational facility and at the same time to provide much-needed employment for the Niagara Peninsula.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School to the Legislative Assembly today.

EASTERN ONTARIO ISSUES SUMMIT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I direct this statement to the Minister of Natural Resources. The ministry has introduced resource policies which are so extreme and so detrimental to the resource economy of eastern Ontario that the people of the Ottawa Valley have organized a summit to find solutions to the problems created by this ministry. They have organized this summit because they believe that the Ministry of Natural Resources has gone through the motions of public consultation while plowing ahead with its own anti-development agenda.

Instead of listening to the hundreds of people who opposed the Madawaska highlands, the Ministry of Natural Resources is conducting smoke-and-mirrors consultations while proceeding as it had originally planned.

I wish to remind the minister that this action resulted in the resignation of the Renfrew county warden from the highlands committee. The minister has already set aside 16,000 hectares of forest on the east side of Algonquin Park, killing 142 jobs at the mill in Braeside; this too was done without consultation.

Because this minister has failed to engage in genuine consultations, the people have taken their own initiative by organizing the Eastern Ontario Issues Summit.

I hope the Minister of Natural Resources learns a lesson about consultation from this process in Renfrew county, and I trust he will act upon the resolutions passed at the summit this Saturday, December 4, in Pembroke.

DON VALLEY BRICKWORKS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I would like to take this opportunity to tell the members of the House about an important site in my riding, the Don Valley Brickworks. Last week, the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr Howard Hampton, joined me and many local politicians and interested individuals for a tour.

The importance of this location is not realized by many of the people who drive by it on Bayview Avenue just south of Pottery Road. It has been designated by UNESCO as a world heritage site and by the province as an area of natural and scientific interest.

Geologists would point out that the northern slope contains fossilized remains of a giant beaver and beetles and trees from the maple forest which sheltered buffalo. Historians will tell you that the brickmaking which took place here was essential to the establishment of Toronto as an industrial centre and that most of the bricks built the downtown area, including Casa Loma and Queen's Park. So I want to take the opportunity for people to appreciate the natural beauty of Don Valley.

The Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority plans to rehabilitate this site so that people can learn about the past, and it has made an application under Jobs Ontario. There's going to be funding by Metro, augmented by private donations. So if there is any more interest, they can call my constituency office.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This isn't a new point of order for you; you've heard the point of order before, but perhaps you have a new view of it today. As we look over on the government benches, we see that there are 12 ministers who are going to be absent from the House today, 12 ministers to whom members of the opposition would like to be directing their questions.

In addition to that, the Premier of the province is not here. He's engaged in a photo opportunity. We well recall how he denounced a photo opportunity with the former Prime Minister, perhaps wisely now.

My point of order to you is: With the House supposedly in session until at least the end of next week and possibly beyond that, would you intervene with the government House leader and others to ensure that we have sufficient ministers so that we can direct all of our appropriate important questions to the ministers instead of having them celebrating what they call in education a Rae day?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): This is by way of some information on this question. As members will know, the Minister of Finance is in Halifax working with the ministers from across the nation around some of the very serious fiscal questions that are faced across this country. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is at a conference with agriculture and food processing sector participants, assisting, at their request, in coordination of some policy development.

We also have the unfortunate circumstance today of having several of my colleagues who, having perhaps spent too much time in the same room over the last couple of weeks, find themselves ill with a bug that has affected many over the last several weeks.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Very briefly, and echoing some of the comments made by the member for St Catharines, depending on whether you use the Bob Rae new math calculation to determine how many members are in cabinet or the old system of mathematics, there are still about 50% of the cabinet ministers away. I think the point made by the member for St Catharines is quite appropriate. This is the same Premier who's denounced other people for being away at photo ops, and now he's at a photo op himself. How ironic.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for St Catharines and indeed to all members, the short answer to the point of order is that a quorum is present and there are cabinet ministers in attendance. The longer answer is that I'm not aware of a Parliament where the Speaker has the power to insist on attendance in the chamber -- not that it is impossible, and members may wish to consider such a rule change to give the Speaker that kind of awesome power, but that is something for the members to ponder.

It is, however, now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, we have yet another question about mismanagement at the Workers' Compensation Board. Under a freedom of information request, we've received documents from the Workers' Compensation Board that show it has lost $45 million over three years through overpayments. According to the WCB documents, the reasons for the overpayment include processing errors, computer errors, duplicate payments, out-of-date information and overpayments that have been made after benefits have been revoked.

Minister, you keep telling us that you have absolute confidence in the management of the Workers' Compensation Board. Does $45 million of waste through overpayments do anything at all to shake your confidence?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): We're always trying to improve and update the performance at the Workers' Compensation Board, and I think that is in the process of happening. I can also say that most overpayments result in the WCB's attempts to pay benefits as up to date as possible for workers who are injured. If we are unaware of a return to work, benefits may be issued beyond the point of that work date and then efforts have to be made to reclaim them.

Mrs McLeod: As of October, there were some 229,868 people receiving benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board. The information we received states that there are 22,525 people who have received overpayments. That means that approximately one in 10 receives an overpayment, that one in 10 claims results in overpayment being made to that individual. Minister, do you really feel that the WCB's record of making overpayments in one out of 10 claims is an acceptable rate of mismanagement?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't think anybody has an acceptable rate of mismanagement; that's an unfortunate way of putting it. I think overpayments occur as a result of retroactive changes in workers' entitlement and to benefits, or administrative errors. The WCB's systems do not permit a separate analysis of these three categories of overpayment at the moment, and it's one of the issues we're working on at the board.

Mrs McLeod: So we're making some progress. I'm not sure you've actually said that the mismanagement at WCB is unacceptable, but at least the rate of mismanagement at WCB is unacceptable. That has to constitute some progress in having you recognize that there is a serious problem out there.

The $45 million that is made in overpayments does not even include the overpayments that have been forgiven and written off the books. WCB policies allow case workers to forgive overpayments if they're more than three years old.

I would suggest that it is difficult, if not impossible, to try to recover overpayments that are made to injured workers years after the fact. I suspect most injured workers don't have the money that is needed to make a repayment. The problem needs to be fixed by preventing the overpayments from going out in the first place.

At a time when 27,000 Ontario businesses are facing WCB rate increases of more than 25%, employers have a right to be angry when they see continued examples of the mismanagement at the Workers' Compensation Board. Minister, why is the WCB's only response to its financial crisis and its mismanagement to raise the premiums for employers? We ask you again, when are you going to act to deal with the mismanagement at the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I take a little bit of exception to the 25% increase in so many there. The member across the way knows specifically that the increase, whether she accepts it or not, is 3%, and that the differences, and there are as many down as there are up, are the adjustments that were made in the classification system.

I can also tell her that the WCB is reviewing its policies to improve the ways and means of preventing overpayments and putting into place more effective collection procedures. That's something we've been working on for some time.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, the leader of the third party did ask you a question yesterday about delisting of OHIP services. Quite frankly, we weren't sure whether his question was about your new consultation process or whether it was about user fees, which he supports on the one hand but criticizes you for introducing on the other hand, so we thought we would come back to the question again.

Yesterday, you did launch a public consultation process to consider what health care services are to be covered by OHIP. You told the House that this is a unique and open process. You will certainly know that the ads that are alerting the public of the opportunity to engage in what we believe to be a very important debate started running yesterday.

The deadline for submissions is January 10. There will be only one public hearing. It will be held here in Toronto on January 19. That gives the people of this province 41 days to make written submissions and eight hours to make oral presentations on proposals which could fundamentally change health care in the province of Ontario. I don't need to add that the 41 days take place over Christmas and Hanukkah, and I don't think there are a lot of people who are really focusing on these issues over that period. I ask if you really believe that a meaningful and an open debate can occur over this very short time period.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that the debate on whether services that are not considered by some to be essential, medically necessary, should be covered by our health insurance plan did not start yesterday. It's a debate that has been raging for several years, in fact even before I think we became the government of this province.

It's a debate that has been answered in many cases by decisions that have been taken by government. Under our government, we began to consider taking those decisions in consultation with the Ontario Medical Association because, for the first time, we have an agreement with the medical association to jointly try to manage our health insurance system. But when we proposed earlier this year that a number of procedures -- limits on the hours for psychotherapy is a good example to use -- we certainly heard from many people around the province that they wanted to make sure their views were known and that they considered the decision we had suggested an inappropriate one.

We responded, so the debate has moved to a certain extent to a much shorter list of procedures that many doctors and physicians do not believe are essential and that are basically cosmetic services.

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

Hon Mrs Grier: In order to have some objective review of those, much of the debate and the argument, the submissions and the letters that have already been received have been heard from. The idea behind the advertisements that the panel inserted was to alert people to its work and to alert anybody not already aware of this issue that they had an opportunity to be heard.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm confident that there will be an opportunity for them to be heard.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, there may be some confusion on the part of the people whom you have asked to make presentations to your panel as to exactly what you intend to do with any advice which the panel may then give you. You've said that the process is open. You've said that it is important that we have this kind of open debate on the issues. On that we would agree. But you also indicated yesterday that you would not necessarily accept the advice which was based on this very open discussion.

Minister, we have raised concerns in the past about your apparent readiness to unilaterally make political decisions about the kind of health care that people in this province should receive. I ask you, quite seriously, if you are not going to accept the advice that this panel gives you as a result of this open process, exactly what is the purpose of the consultation and can you tell us today on what basis you are going to make your decisions about the health care that the people of this province need?

Hon Mrs Grier: As we all know, question period is a no-win part of the day. If the Minister of Health is going to make decisions, as has been done in the past, and by other ministers of Health, that's unacceptable, because what does the Minister of Health know about health care? The Minister of Health shouldn't make those decisions.

Then we as a government negotiate an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association that we will jointly manage health care. The joint management committee produces a list of procedures that it says should not be funded by health care and we, as part of our budget and cost-cutting exercise, put out that list and say, "Here are some things we are considering not funding." But that isn't good enough, because what does the Ontario Medical Association and the ministry, through its joint management committee, know? It's got to be a broader process.

Then we move to a broader process. We appoint a panel and we say to the panel, "Give us some advice." That's not good enough either.

The final decision will be made by the government -- that's where the buck stops -- and the final decision will be made with all the available information in the very best interests of the people of this province and of protecting the health care system of this province.

Mrs McLeod: The minister is right on one point: Question period can be a no-win situation. We ask you questions about a consultation process which you put in place and trumpeted as being a unique and open opportunity for people to debate their health care needs. You give people no time to respond, you give them one day to make oral presentations, you will not agree to accept the advice that the panel is going to present and you will not tell us on what basis you are going to make the ultimate decisions that you say government must finally make about the health care that the people of this province will receive.

No wonder people come back and say this whole consultation process is a sham. You've got to give them more than that. You've got to give them an assurance that these decisions are not going to be made politically by government.

I say to you too, Minister, that when you reference the fact that you have already had a year-long public debate over the original proposals that you made to delist --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I'm not understanding what you say.

The Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mrs McLeod: -- the only reason there's been a debate is because you have already unilaterally attempted to take away coverage for health care services and people had to react to your unilateral action.

All you've been involved in for the past year is damage control, Minister, and we want this process to be better than that. That's why again I ask you, because we believe that this consultation process should be open and should be meaningful, will you extend the deadline for submissions and will you increase the number of hearings and the location of the hearings so there is a real opportunity for the public to be heard?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say that I welcome the acceptance by the opposition of the fact that this should, for the first time in the history of this province, be a process that has some public involvement. I'm glad you agree. Sorry you never thought of it. I hope we do it properly; I'm sure we will.

The recommendations and the consultation of that panel will come back to the joint management committee, which under our agreement with the Ontario Medical Association has assumed responsibility for making recommendations to government. The panel has been the recipient of much of the input that I know the members of my caucus have heard from people. If you haven't heard from anybody around this question, I'm sorry, but certainly all of my colleagues have, and that information has been passed on to the panel. The panel is examining it, and the panel will make its recommendations when it is ready to do so.

INVESTIGATION AT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. It's related to an

article in the Toronto Sun today, a story by Christie Blatchford related to an Ontario jail guard at the Guelph Correctional Centre parading a white inmate dressed in a Ku Klux Klan outfit through two cell blocks full of black inmates. I wonder if the minister would describe to the House today if indeed this actually occurred and what he has done in response to this incident.

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I am of course aware of the matter. I can say to the honourable member that there was an investigation of this by the ministry's independent investigations unit. They have concluded that investigation, a report was generated and concluded, and I can say that any appropriate action that needed to be taken as a result of that was.

Mr Runciman: I think that's a totally inadequate explanation in respect to this matter. Obviously the Solicitor General's indicating that indeed this incident did occur. He's confirming that. But I think we require more than a confirmation of the occurrence. We need a much fuller explanation in terms of his response, but also why it took his ministry, his government, so long to respond to complaints related to this matter. According to the press reports, it took three years to start the investigation and over a year to complete the investigation.

I hate to say this, Minister, but there's a strong odour of coverup related to this matter, and I ask you for a full explanation in respect to why this took too long and to be more forthcoming in terms of what action you took in response to it.

Hon Mr Christopherson: First of all, let me be very clear that in confirming, using the words of the honourable member, I'm acknowledging that I am aware of an issue and I'm aware of the issue that's raised in the media today and I am not confirming or denying any of the circumstances or specifics that may or may not be included in the article. What I'm saying is that as a result of what is talked about in that

article -- and I understand that the matter may go back quite a number of years -- there was an investigation by the independent investigations unit and they did conclude their investigation and submit a report.

I know the honourable member has a great deal of difficulty with such things as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act legislation, but I must again say that individuals have rights, and their rights in this particular case prohibit me from stating anything beyond that which I already have.

Mr Runciman: The minister wonders about my response. In fact it is frustration in respect to many of the responses we get from him and his government. I asked him some specific questions which I feel in no way infringe upon any individual's right to privacy. I asked why the investigation took over three years to begin, why it took over a year to be completed. Minister, I asked you those specific questions.

I think it's fair as well to talk about disciplinary action taken. Apparently none has been taken. I think we have a right to know why none has been taken.

What message does this send to the black community? The minister and his government right now have a commission on systemic racism in the justice system travelling the province and getting no one to attend, at a cost to taxpayers of some $3.5 million, when he clearly has a problem in his own backyard.

At least, Mr Minister, answer the questions I put to you today, which in no way infringe on anyone's right to privacy, and indicate what disciplinary action you're taking, and if none, why?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think the question the member poses very clearly shows that he does not support the concepts contained in the provincial legislation I've talked about. Whether or not in any incident a disciplinary action was taken, within the confines of the Ontario public service, is a matter that does fall under privacy legislation. These matters have been dealt with in this Legislature and in courts.

People have rights, and those rights, with all due respect, do go ahead of the political agenda of the honourable member. I do wish he would separate the difference between that political agenda and our responsibility and my responsibility as the Solicitor General to uphold those rights and to uphold the processes that are contained in our justice system.

Lastly, let me say, in terms of workplace discrimination, this government has put forward policies and initiated training and taken steps that no other government in the history of this province has, and indeed we're very proud of the work that's being done. In my own ministry we're well ahead of what the honourable member would ever do in terms of the kind of training that we now have, and we will continue to do that.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Attorney General. I'm sure that by now you have seen the front page of the Toronto Star today regarding the Karla Homolka trial ban. Is it your ministry's opinion that the Toronto Star has broken the publication ban, and if so, will you be laying charges against the Toronto Star?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): As I have said on a number of occasions, any reported incidents are being looked at very seriously by the ministry. I have not had a report on this particular issue as to whether or not it constitutes a breach of the publication ban, but if it were determined that it did, I would assume the same would apply to the Toronto Star as to any other individual or distributor or publisher that would be liable to action by the justice system.

Mr Harris: Minister, yesterday you and the Premier and your government were quick to condemn the American media outlets for their actions, but the situation today, I believe, is different. We potentially have a Canadian news agency breaking the ban. Emotions are running very high, I think you would agree, on this issue. Every incident that occurs is heightening this. For weeks we've had the ban flaunted in our faces by Gordon Domm of Guelph. Why haven't you laid charges in any of these instances to date?

Hon Mrs Boyd: In the first place, I do not lay charges, as the member is well aware. That is not part of my function. Secondly, as I have said on numerous occasions, this is a very difficult issue. There are two different matters that need to be taken into account. One is a breach of the publication ban that would break

section 127 of the Criminal Code, and that is a police matter and the police need to make that determination. The other is the determination of whether or not contempt of court has occurred, and in that instance the Attorney General's ministry takes that action. It is important for us to make those distinctions.

In every instance that has occurred, investigation has either been completed or is ongoing. We take this very seriously as an obligation to maintain the integrity of the justice system and to ensure that any accused has a right to a fair trial. That's our obligation when a court makes a judgement, makes an order, and we will continue to do that.

I cannot, however, and the member is well aware of this, discuss whether or not charges have been laid or are being laid in matters that are under investigation, nor can I discuss the future actions that may be taken. That would be most inappropriate.

Mr Harris: Minister, I think it's important that each one of us remember the reasons for the publication ban in the first place. The courts issued the ban to ensure that the trial of Paul Teale is not jeopardized. That was the reason. That was then and that is today, I think the minister would agree with me, the bottom line. But that trial may not take place for two years, which I suggest to you is another issue for another day.

Given that the front page of one of Ontario's most widely read newspapers today has the appearance, certainly to me, that there is information right on the front page that I have not seen published before anywhere in Canada, and it appears that the potential pitfalls daily for enforcement of the ban are great, then one has to question the tools that you have or your willingness to use the tools that you have to enforce the ban.

I would ask you, as opposed to a few days ago, when you said, "The ban's working fine, there's no problem" -- I think you were asked, "Isn't this like a sieve?" and you said, "No, no, it's working fine," -- I think you would agree with me today that it looks more like a sieve. I just wonder if you could outline for us what it is you plan to do differently in the future to uphold and enforce this ban to stop the sieve.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would say again that I'm not prepared to discuss in this place an investigation that is ongoing. That would be inappropriate. That investigation continues of each breach as it goes along. If charges are laid, they will be pursued vigorously. If charges are not laid, it may be that the judgement was made that either there is not a reasonable prospect of conviction, which of course is the threshold test for any case, or that information that may purport to have breached the ban may not in fact have breached the ban. There are those kinds of possibilities.

But I would say to the member opposite that he is quite right. We all should be most concerned with the kind of feeding frenzy that has gone on among the press in their efforts to try and sell newspapers, to profit out of this horrible situation, to try and whip up a sense of public support for their contention that their appeal should be seen as being more important, that their appeal to freedom of speech and the right of the public to know should be counted as more important than the right of an accused to a fair trial. I think that is of real concern to all of us.

There is an appeal that has been launched that will be heard on January 31. That date has been set for a number of days. I would expect that these issues will be settled by the court at that time. I would urge that all of us attempt to support the sanctity and the integrity of the criminal justice system to the extent that we can in the meantime.

SALE OF AIRCRAFT

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): In the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, I have no choice but to go to the deputy Deputy Premier, the Minister of Education and Training.

This morning the Premier announced that the de Havilland plant in Downsview had secured an order from SA Express, a South Africa-based company, for 12 de Havilland Dash-8 series 300-B aircraft and an option on an additional six aircraft. The sale of the 12 planes is worth more than US$150 million. I want to say that we congratulate de Havilland on this sale and rejoice with the workers in this tangible show of support for their efforts.

As a major shareholder in de Havilland, the Premier did not address important questions which arise as a result of this announcement. Members will want to know that when Boeing, the largest and most successful aircraft company in the world, owned de Havilland, every time it sold a Dash-8 it lost $1 million. As a result, they found their position untenable and subsequently sold the company to a partnership made up of the province of Ontario and Bombardier.

Could the minister tell us whether or not this sale is going to be profitable, and if it is going to be profitable, could he tell us how much money will be made as a result of this particular transaction?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): The member asks a very, very specific question on de Havilland. I will indicate to the member that I do not have the specific answer. It would be most appropriate that this question will be taken as notice, and the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade can respond.

I certainly think the member has made a very good point in reminding the people in the Legislature and the people of the province of this government's commitment to de Havilland and the workers at de Havilland, and the work that the Premier and this government have done to secure those jobs and that investment in Metropolitan Toronto and in the province of Ontario.

Mr Kwinter: I thank the minister for that reply, but he also has to understand that his government also has a commitment to the taxpayers of Ontario to make sure that their $49-million investment is secure and that the business is being conducted in a businesslike way.

I have one other area of great concern. The minister may want to know that when Boeing owned de Havilland, it had a two-year waiting period in order to deliver aircraft, because it had back orders. They could only build five a month. I understand the company is only building two aircraft a month, yet in the announcement today, the Premier said that delivery would start taking place in the first quarter of 1994. That can only indicate one thing to me: They have no orders for aircraft. Because they're all custom-built, they don't build them on speculation.

If they can start delivering these aircraft in the first quarter of 1994, it indicates to me that there is not very much in the way of back orders for this company, so the workers that you are so anxious to protect have to be in fairly serious jeopardy.

Could the minister tell me whether or not he has any knowledge as to what the status of de Havilland is, and is there in fact a viable number of orders to keep this business functioning?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): How many notes did you get there, David?

Hon Mr Cooke: I've got quite a few notes, but none that make a lot of sense to me. Actually, it looks like multiple choice.

As I indicated to the member, his questions are detailed questions that deserve a full and complete reply. Certainly, we'll take them as notice and provide the member with a response.

I would also like to get a better understanding at some point of exactly what the position of the Liberal caucus is. Is the member actually suggesting that there should not have been an investment by this government in de Havilland? Is the member actually suggesting that de Havilland should have been allowed to close? Does he not understand the incredible contribution that this company and the jobs make to this community, and the spinoff to the economy in this province?

This government had to go it alone and we saved those jobs without the federal government. If the member doesn't support that, and the Liberal caucus has always spoken out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to de Havilland, then why doesn't he just tell us where they stand?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for Oakville South.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Let me ask a question. Tell us how much money we're spending and we'll tell you whether we support it.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Chair of Management Board, in the absence of the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. As the minister will know, the Ministry of Economic Development recently announced the establishment of a community economic program. This secretariat is going to cost about $2.5 billion and is being headed up by a Robin Murray at a salary of $130,000 a year for two years. Would you be able to tell us what the qualifications were for Mr Murray to head up this important program for the government?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I can't unfortunately provide the specific details of Mr Murray's résumé, but I can say to the member opposite that I'm at least aware that he has considerable experience in the community economic development field both here and internationally. I'm sure my colleague the Minister of Economic Development and Trade would be prepared to provide him with further details.

Mr Carr: He may be very qualified, but the problem is this gentleman comes from Britain and I understand we're going to be spending some money for moving expenses for him to move from Britain.

My question to you is very simple: Was there nobody qualified in the province of Ontario, with our unemployment situation as high as it is, to take over this position? The second

part is, how much are the taxpayers of this province going to be paying to move this gentleman from Great Britain to Ontario to work with Ontario communities? Very clearly, the questions are, was there nobody from Ontario and how much is it going to cost the taxpayers of this province?

Hon Mr Charlton: There are, as the member has clearly pointed out, two parts to his question and I can't, again, provide the specific details; I'm sure my colleague from Economic Development and Trade can. But I should comment very clearly to the member opposite that this government is embarking on a whole new range of community economic development initiatives never undertaken anywhere in this country before, let alone by either of the administrations across the way in this province.

I should also point out that his first question referred to the fact that my colleague is setting up a community economic development secretariat which includes more than the one person the gentleman across the way refers to. So yes, we have some skill in this province, some locally honed talent that will be part of this process, but it's also clear we're embarking on some initiatives that neither of the parties across the way have had the courage to confront at a community level before in this province.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is to the honourable Minister of Citizenship and it concerns Bill 79, the employment equity legislation. I would like to preface my question by stating that employment equity has been a bold step towards the equity and justice agenda of this government, and I believe, like most, that employment equity has been a long time coming in the province of Ontario. Although you wouldn't know it by what you read or hear in the media, there is a need to improve the way we practise employment practices across the province.

The only stories you hear about, though, are that employment equity, Bill 79, will impose some sort of quota on employers across the province.

Madam Minister, this is a serious issue. There is a misconception that Bill 79 will force employers to hire unqualified people or less-qualified people or even force employers to hire people on the basis of their gender, race or disability just to fill a so-called quota. Is your intention to impose quotas on employers which force them to hire designated group members, and does setting numerical goals really mean fulfilling quotas and hiring unqualified people?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): To my colleague and friend from Sault Ste Marie, I thank you very much for your interest in this particular matter, and I say to all the people who are listening that I know you believe in fairness and justice in the workplace, and Bill 79 will provide for that.

You've asked a very important question and the question was about quotas and whether the government is insisting on employers to hire unqualified people. No, that is not the issue. Bill 79 very clearly states that what we want employers to do is to set, with their bargaining agents if there happens to be a union in the workplace, numerical goals. Those numerical goals would be based on the qualified persons --

Interjections.

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

Hon Ms Ziemba: -- who are available in the community. This is very important because the employers and the bargaining agent, if one is available, will be setting goals, again, as I state, on very important factors that are respected in the community, and that is the amount of people who are graduating from colleges and universities who have the qualifications and the people who are within that community -- I'm sorry, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Would the minister please take her seat. The question's been answered. Supplementary?

Mr Martin: Thank you to the minister. You state that the purpose of employment equity is to remove systemic barriers faced by designated group members, but once again I must go back to public perception. The impression out in the public is that white males need not apply and they are somehow being targeted by this legislation. Could you respond to that, Minister?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I think again this is very important to dispel the myth that does exist out there, because employment equity will benefit all workers. It will benefit everybody who is in the workplace because, as employers are setting their goals and as employers are recognizing the barriers that might exist in a workplace, they will start to see a different attitude in that workplace and will make sure that the workplace is looking at all of those concerns that affect all of the employees.

When we talk about the fact that we will be having perhaps reverse discrimination, that takes into fact that there perhaps is a level playing field --

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

Hon Ms Ziemba: That is not the case in point right now. There is not a level playing field. Bill 79 will ensure that we have a level playing field.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. I'm wondering what suggestions you have for a community of 4,000 people who have no access to a physician.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I hope that community is working with my ministry and with the underserviced area program to help them identify a physician, and I'd be very glad to have the details from the member and make sure that everything that we can do is being done if there is a remote community that is having that problem.

Mrs Sullivan: The community is Peterborough. In Peterborough four general practitioners have left the community for other purposes, some because of illness, some to enter specialties. Other doctors have taken over their patient loads to the best of their ability, but 4,000 are none the less without access to a general practitioner. The president of the Peterborough Medical Society has called this situation a crisis.

The November list of underserviced areas is not yet available and still under revision. I'd like to ask the minister if she will declare Peterborough county an underserviced area and if she will ensure that there are adequate physicians in the community to provide necessary medical care, which the Canada Health Act guarantees, to the people of that community.

Hon Mrs Grier: Had the member in her first question identified that it was the community of Peterborough that she was referring to, I would have been able to tell her in my first reply that my colleague the member for Peterborough and I have had a number of discussions around the fact that at the same time a number of private practitioners have left Peterborough.

I have to say to the member that physicians, as independent businessmen and self-employed, frequently move, frequently dispose of their practices, and in some communities there is more difficulty in attracting a physician than in others. I would agree that if a number of doctors leave at the same time from a community, that is a particular issue, but I believe that the community of Peterborough is an extremely attractive place for anyone to want to go and live and for anyone to want to go and practise.

I have every confidence that the fact that there are now vacancies for physicians in Peterborough, which the member for Peterborough as well as the opposition critic have made well known, will attract many physicians who will want to live in Peterborough, because I am sure there are many who would find it a most desirable place to live as compared to other underserviced areas in the northern parts of this province which perhaps do not have quite as many obvious amenities to offer.

TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRE

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation: The minister may believe that she's saving some money by closing down during the winter months the Lancaster tourist information bureau. The centre is the first stopping point for westbound tourists driving into Ontario along the 401. Because of that, many tourists discover places to stay in eastern Ontario such as the Brockville area and many other areas. The Royal Brock Hotel in Brockville has identified the Lancaster tourist bureau as a major source of its winter tourist business. The local chambers of commerce fully agree.

Minister, are you prepared to reconsider your thoughts of closing down the Lancaster tourist bureau along 401 all through the winter months following this year?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I appreciate the question from the member. I know he's been working hard to raise the issue with me as to whether this is a fair closure or not.

Of course, all members of this House are interested, as is the public, in the continuing streamlining of government operations. I've looked very thoroughly at this issue, and I do feel comfortable that this is an area where it is safe to be able to work on some streamlining of government operations.

The Lancaster centre will continue to stay open when the numbers warrant, namely, between May and October. During that time, we'll continue to have two staff there to try and make sure we protect the safety of staff. On the other hand, during the winter months, the stormy weather etc means that the centre is just not used to the same level that most all-year-round facilities would be used.

In the interests of streamlining operations we are going to be continuing to provide service to the public, but from the Cornwall travel centre as well as from the 1-800-ONTARIO telephone line service.

Mr Villeneuve: It's not the Cornwall travel centre that has the most business. I am quite sure that the busiest area of all is the first tourist bureau coming into Ontario on the 401, and that's the one at Lancaster. It's less than five years old, a brand-new building.

There's no doubt that questionable grants from your ministry have been made, all of which have probably far less impact than the closure of the Lancaster travel information centre. We've identified some of these grants in this Legislature.

This centre is effectively the gateway into Ontario from the Maritimes, from Quebec and from the eastern United States. The Premier has said that the government must work with the private sector to create jobs. In this case, the private sector is feeling devastated and is telling you and us that the centre has done an excellent job. The centre is generating a good deal of income because there is a 10% rebate on every hotel room they book. This is not a money loser. It's almost breaking even.

Minister, will you not please reconsider? It's the most important tourism information centre on the westbound highway.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: The money being generated, the 10% the member is referring to, is the money that's being generated through the pilot throughout eastern Ontario of the central reservation and information services, the CRIS program, through the 1-800-ONTARIO line.

Visitors will continue to help to generate that 10% revenue through the CRIS service to my ministry and to the service that we'll continue to provide through the 1-800 number as well as through anybody who goes into the Cornwall area to obtain their service.

I do believe that we've looked very carefully at the numbers and the traffic, the quality of service and the type of services that we're delivering in the eastern Ontario area. In terms of providing that, we're operating 12 year-round travel centres throughout the province and six seasonal centres. It does make sense to me that this is one of the areas where we make the change from year-round to seasonal.

SERVICES FOR THE HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Our government has made a commitment to providing access to persons with disabilities through a number of initiatives such as employment equity legislation. Is Management Board doing anything for deaf people employed through the Ontario public service to enhance their work environment?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member raises an important question. Yes, as a matter of fact, we have started this year a pilot American sign language training program which was funded out of the employment accommodation fund which was set up several years ago. As of September 1 this year, we have 47 people enrolled in that program.

Although, like all new things, these things don't happen instantly, hopefully over time we will be able to significantly expand the ability of the 150 deaf people who work in the OPS currently both to deal between job locations and departments and even ministries, but as well to start to provide some significant access to the public who have hearing disabilities and/or speech disabilities.

Mr Malkowski: How is this training project funded and will this service be provided on an ongoing basis?

Hon Mr Charlton: Currently, as I suggested, the pilot project is being funded out of the employment accommodation fund, and for the next several years it will continue to be funded out of that fund, depending, on the one hand, on the success of this pilot project. That's what pilot projects are about: to determine both the extent of demand that exists out there for this kind of training and the extent of delivery we can cause.

We will have to look at how we in the future regularize the program once we've identified our ability to both deliver service internally to the deaf and deliver services externally to the larger population of this province, who rightfully have, and should have, access to government and government programs which are as much a right to them as to the rest of the residents in this province.

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Solicitor General and it concerns the two ongoing investigations, one criminal and the other on an alleged government coverup of the 1976 investigation into abuse at the Grandview Training School for Girls.

Almost 20 months ago, Minister, I asked your predecessor if he received regular updates on this important investigation and, if he did, would he share them with this House. In response to my question at that time, the then Solicitor General told me, and I quote from Hansard, "If for some reason it becomes apparent or I believe the investigation is not being done in an appropriate way or a timely manner, I will consider alternative measures."

Solicitor General, do you believe that these investigations are proceeding in a timely way? You know and I know that there have been but two citizens charged in almost three full years of investigation, the last charge being laid fully seven months ago.

My question today is, how many police officers on this day, December 1, 1993, are dedicated to each of these investigations: the investigation of a government coverup and the criminal investigation? How many police officers are working full-time to obtain justice for the victims of Grandview?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I appreciate the question from the honourable member. What I would say to her in this regard is that the question of how many officers and what resources are brought to bear on any particular investigation is indeed the decision of the local chief or the commissioner of the OPP. It's an operational matter. They make those determinations, and I believe that is indeed the way that it should be.

I'm not in a position on this, or quite frankly any other, investigation to talk about the number of actual officers or exact dollar amounts. I would refer the member to the appropriate chief or to the commissioner if she would like further details beyond what I can say here today.

Mrs O'Neill: That answer is really going backwards. At least the previous Solicitor General would tell us that there were 10 police officers on one investigation and 10 on another. This particular minister will tell us nothing.

I also asked your predecessor and I'm asking you today, how is it possible for you as minister to be impartial when you, Solicitor General, are the member of the executive council who is responsible for the Ministry of Correctional Services, the branch of government being investigated?

You are responsible for the investigations. Whether you want to tell me the number and the resources available or not, yours is still the ultimate responsibility in this case. You're responsible for the investigators and you're also responsible for those being investigated.

During the hearings of the standing committee on estimates on October 20, 1993, your colleague the Attorney General acknowledged in response to my question about these investigations that it is difficult for the Grandview women --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a supplementary, please.

Mrs O'Neill: -- to have trust in a government agency. She also stated on that occasion that she is frustrated with the snail's pace of this investigation.

We understand the victims have been told --

The Speaker: Would the member please place a supplementary.

Mrs O'Neill: -- that the coverup investigation is in abeyance. Minister, do you believe you can effectively be responsible for the investigation and those being investigated, and is the coverup investigation in abeyance?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'm trying to work my way through the question. I believe that the honourable member has the answer to her question with my last response.

The fact that the decisions around the number of officers, around how much deployment of resources is put into any individual investigation, are indeed the responsibility of the chief or the OPP commissioner very much shows that those responsibilities are where they should be. They should be in the hands of the senior officers responsible. They should be at arm's length from my ministry. I should not be making those determinations. I am not making those determinations. I believe that things are being conducted in exactly the way the legislation intended and in the best interests of the public.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, in June 1992 I asked you about your friend Wally Majesky from FP Labour Consultant Services and your award to him of a $160,000 unsolicited, untendered contract. You awarded your pal the contract with a deadline of spring 1993, but later we were informed by MTO that the final report had been delayed until October 1993. Minister, it's December. Where's the report?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): What the member opposite is referring to is the sole-source provision under the jurisdictional capacity of the Chair of Management Board. Everything that is being done here is legit. It is completely and totally aboveboard. It will stand any and every scrutiny. There is nothing out of the ordinary.

Also, when you have an important report, it's not the first time in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that a report solicited by way of contractual arrangement is a month or two months late. Just have a little patience. I remember some of the reports, when you were in government for 42 years, that never even made it to Queen's Park.

Mr Turnbull: The minister didn't answer my question. I said it had been due in the spring, then it was delayed until October and it still isn't here.

You know quite well, Minister, from your own documents, which we got by way of FOI, that the information in this report was to a great extent duplicating existing information. It was clear that you wanted to give money to the Wally Majesky retirement fund. Even with the assistance of staff from MTO, you still don't have the report. My question is, are you suppressing this report until after the House rises so that it masks this expenditure of $160,000 to create a prep school for up-and-coming union bosses?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I'm somewhat appalled and shocked that under the sanctity of immunity a citizen's reputation would get soiled. Mr Majesky is an honourable member of society. He is a proud citizen. I invite the member to go and make the same kind of stinging attack outside this Legislature.

To the question, what was commissioned, the criteria, the mandate, the task that had to be adhered to are of a meticulous nature. It is also voluminous. There is a lot of work there and we're a few months late, but the report should reach us within weeks.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Kerry's Place is a home which cares for developmentally handicapped children under the age of 21. However, once residents reach the age of 21, they are no longer qualified for the services that Kerry's Place offers.

My constituents' son, Jordan Weinroth, is a young man who suffers from autism. He and six other young people aged 21 or older are being forced out of the Kerry's Place program. Without appropriate care, Jordan will withdraw into himself. He has made enormous progress at Kerry's Place, and all of that will be undone if he is evicted and forced from the program.

Will you guarantee today that Jordan Weinroth and the six other young people who are being forced from the Kerry's Place program will not be evicted until they are placed in a suitable and appropriate program? Will you give that commitment today, that you won't leave them out there without any support?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I would certainly be prepared to commit that we will look into the matter and provide whatever assistance we can. What we have tried to do in situations like this is try to ensure that everything is done to have an appropriate placement for these young people, because this is an issue that we know continues to be a problem.

We're also trying to deal at a policy level with the issue itself, but in the meantime we try to deal with these instances on an individual basis. I'd certainly be prepared to have us look in more detail into the matter and see what more can be done.

Mrs Caplan: Minister, I appreciate your response. It is very important that you give those families your assurance today that their young people will not be forced out of that program until there is an appropriate placement available for them. That has been an assurance that has been given in the past. It's appropriate for you to give that assurance today.

This is creating tremendous anxiety among those families. These young people have received excellent care. They've made enormous progress. What I'm asking you today is for your commitment as Minister of Community and Social Services that they will not be forced from one program until an appropriate and suitable placement is available for them. That is a reasonable request. I ask you to make it today.

Hon Mr Silipo: If it wasn't clear in my first answer, let me be very clear. What we have done in instances like this is to ensure that the individuals are not moved out of the facility or out of the placement until another appropriate placement is found, and I would expect that would be the course of action we would follow in this instance. I would be prepared to follow up and ensure that happens.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish to advise you and the House of my dissatisfaction with the answer from the Solicitor General today, and I will be asking for a late show on this matter. It's disgusting, in this week of observation about violence against women, that I get an answer like this on a subject of such importance.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Make sure you advise the table accordingly.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition I've been asked to present in the Legislature. This petition has been signed by many of the residents of the Frankford area and it concerns their protests and complaints about Bill 45.

TAXATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario that,

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced over $3 billion" --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: Yes, I have Brant, the page, standing beside me to receive this petition. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced over $3 billion in new taxes; and

"Whereas the government has continued to mismanage the economy; and

"Whereas new taxes will only further hurt businesses in Ontario;

"The government of Ontario should cancel any new tax initiatives and place more emphasis on reducing wasteful spending."

This is signed by many residents of the province of Ontario and I will affix my signature to it as well.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, members. If you wish to conduct conversation, I would invite you to do it outside the House, please.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have two petitions in opposition to Bill 55, which makes it illegal, "with fines of up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion against historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred."

There are some 88 signatures on these petitions.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Today is December 1, and the residents of north Pickering are now on a 90-day watch.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

This is signed by residents of Scarborough, on Danforth, Kingsmount, Scarboro Crescent and Kingston Road. I affix my signature and hope, this being December 1, that the federal government will now take some action.

TAXATION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a petition signed by hundreds of taxpayers in the province of Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario that,

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced over $3 billion in new taxes; and

"Whereas the government has continued to mismanage the economy; and

"Whereas new taxes will only further hurt businesses in Ontario --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, this is from hundreds of constituents in Ontario. I would ask for the attention of the member for Durham West. They went to a lot of trouble to make this.

"Therefore, the government of Ontario should cancel any new tax initiatives and place more emphasis on reducing wasteful government spending."

My friend Joe will take this down to the table.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

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

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

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

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

That's all the community residents want, to be included in the process. I hear there are assessments happening on the property today.

TAXATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition which has been signed by well over 300 people from my riding, and it is to the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario that,

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced over $3 billion in new taxes; and

"Whereas the government has continued to mismanage the economy; and

"Whereas new taxes will only further hurt business in Ontario;

"The government of Ontario should cancel any new tax initiatives and place more emphasis on reducing wasteful spending."

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which is signed by a number of residents in the small community outside my riding of the town of Merlin and Tilbury. It has a number of "whereases" which talk about gambling:

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

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

On behalf of those constituents in my colleague's riding, I wish to present it.

TAXATION

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario that,

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced over $3 billion in new taxes; and

"Whereas the government has continued to mismanage the economy; and

"Whereas new taxes will only further hurt businesses in Ontario,

"The government of Ontario should cancel any new tax initiatives and place more emphasis on reducing wasteful spending."

It's signed by a number of constituents of the province of Ontario and I affix my name to it as well.

TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): "On behalf of the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority and the advisory board of the Mill of Kintail Museum, we send this letter and the enclosed signed petition in support of your private member's Bill 46,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions."

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas museums are an essential part of the community, serving to preserve heritage and educate the public; and

"Whereas municipal government should be empowered to provide automatic support for museums by enabling them to pass a bylaw exempting particular museums from municipal and school board taxes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Leo Jordan's private Bill 46,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions."

That's been signed by over 100 people and forwarded by the reeve of Lanark township.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I have a petition here and it's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario. It reads:

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

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What about the provincial government?

Mr Perruzza: I ask my Liberal friend to listen up, please. This has been forwarded by residents of Ontario to you. It says:

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

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

Mr Bradley: What about the provincial government land?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Have you told them about the sale of the golf course?

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, I would ask through you that my Liberal colleagues listen up and stop heckling.

It reads:

To this petition I affix my signature and I urge all my Liberal colleagues to do otherwise.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This was provided to me by Dennis Drainville, the former member.

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

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario claims to have had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

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

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

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

I will affix my signature, as I'm in agreement.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here that states:

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it. We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now, but since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code, may include sado-masochism, paedophilia, bestiality, etc and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age, sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

It's signed by some 200 residents of Elgin county and I put it forward to the government.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I have a petition here and it's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario, and another one actually that's directed to the Liberal federal government.

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

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

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

It's signed by a number of individuals and again addressed to the federal Liberal government.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition, actually, from many residents in Hamilton who were afraid that their NDP MPP would not read it, and so I will be only too happy to do my duty.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Oh, she's being inciteful.

Mrs Fawcett: "To the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" --

Mr Perruzza: It's downright rude.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order, the member for Yorkview.

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the word 'spouse' in marital status by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society both morally and economically over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now, but since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code, may include sado-masochism, paedophilia, bestiality, etc and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age, sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 11th report and moved its adoption.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a statement?

Mrs Marland: No, thank you. I do not wish to make a statement.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ALL-WOOD LAND CLEARING LTD ACT, 1993

On motion by Ms Murdock, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr67,

An Act to revive All-Wood Land Clearing Ltd.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Charlton moves government notice of motion number 20. Mr Charlton.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Can you tell us, for the record, how many time allocation motions this has been in the last two weeks? It would be helpful for us during the debate that is about to follow.

The Deputy Speaker: Orders of the day has been given. The minister has been asked to address the House.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Before I move the motion, Mr Speaker, I believe we have agreement to split the time equally three ways this afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement? There is.

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 20:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order in relation to Bill 79,

An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women, the standing committee on administration of justice shall complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by Monday, December 6, 1993. All proposed amendments must be filed with the clerk of the committee prior to 12 noon on the abovenoted day.

At 5 pm on that same day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further amendment or debate, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a).

That the committee be authorized to continue to meet beyond its normal adjournment if necessary until consideration of clause-by-clause has been completed. The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on administration of justice, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading.

That two hours be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(

g) shall be permitted.

Hon Mr Charlton: Members here and those who watch this place on television occasionally may have noticed the House leader for the official opposition party get up on his point of order before I moved the motion and raise the question of how many time allocation motions this government has dealt with in the last two weeks. I'm more than happy to provide that information to the member opposite.

This afternoon will be the fifth debate on time allocation. In that context, because I believe it fits very well into the discussion of the rationale for this motion this afternoon, we have to go back over some of what has been said before here in the House, some of what the opposition parties, both the Liberal and Conservative parties in this Legislature, have not yet come to terms with. I noticed, for example, that during the last several debates on time allocation motions, the members opposite referred repeatedly to the use of time allocation motions stemming democracy and shortening debates and the like.

Comments like that were rampant throughout comments made by the two opposition parties in relation to some of the other time allocation motions that have been debated.

I have said in this House before, and I will say it again this afternoon, that the opposition can complain about the use of time allocation motions and perhaps even convince some in the public that the use of time allocation motions is being abused. But the basic, fundamental reality is that the debates in this place, on average, on each and every single bill we deal with, are taking two and a half times what the traditions of this House would indicate even with the use of time allocation.

What the public, at the end of the day, has to understand is that even with this government's use of a technique like time allocation, we will not bring the amount of time allotted to each bill that gets debated back down to the traditional norms. We may get it down from two and a half times more to two times more or perhaps even down to one and a half times more, but we haven't come even close yet to matching the historic, the traditional norms under the Davis administration in the early 1980s or under the Peterson administration of the late 1980s.

I would be more than happy as the government House leader if we could simply get the debate times on average back down to 150%, back down to one and a half times what we used to spend overall on legislative debate, but I won't. Again, even using these time allocation motions to finish the legislative process, I won't get back down to one and a half times. I'll likely get down to somewhere between one and a half and two times the normal amount of time spent on debate on each and every piece of legislation we consider here in this House.

The opposition will speak to this issue as an issue of restricting democracy and the right to speak. The reality is that this House deals with time allocation motions and this government deals with time allocation motions for the same reasons that our predecessors dealt with time allocation motions, both in the old Conservative administration and in the Liberal administration, and the reality is that those administrations used those techniques far less frequently because they were debating at one and not at a level of two and a half.

When governments have to move at some point to deal with the completion of their legislative agenda, in the circumstances where the government has a majority, as they had, as I said, in the old Bill Davis Tory administration, as they had in the Peterson administration here in this House in the late 1980s, at the end of the day the majority that supports the legislative program of the government has the right to proceed and to implement the legislative agenda which the government has put forward.

The use of these time allocation motions is about trying to get that legislative program in place and at the same time trying to bring the average amount of time we spend on each and every piece of legislation in this process here back down into a reasonable range, a range that's acceptable for the overall conduct of a government legislative program.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I heard what the government House leader has to say, and it is both wrong and completely unjustified in this circumstance.

I think it's important to go through a bit of the history of this bill to show that what the government is doing is exactly what has been said in other circumstances, and that is stamping on democracy, getting rid of democracy. What we had in this House was a second reading debate that proceeded in its normal course, and the government did not feel it was untoward, did not feel time allocation was necessary. We have not yet been in the House -- this is the first circumstance where we're back in the House -- since it passed on second reading, and it goes straight to time allocation.

It's an outrage. It's stamping on the public's right to have a say. It is completely unjustified in the circumstances. You have to ask the question, what's the hurry?

This bill, the employment equity bill, was introduced in June 1992. The government did not decide to call it, even for any consideration whatsoever in this House, until June 1993. Then it decided that it needed to go to committee, which was appropriate. We agreed on that.

We had three weeks of public hearings, which did not even begin to get at the number of people who wanted to speak to this bill. In fact, during the course of the public hearings on the bill, the minister sent out another letter, despite the fact that the committee agenda was full, encouraging people to come and make submissions; an incredible effrontery to the committee and unnecessary to all those people who thought they might have had a chance to speak to the bill but were denied that opportunity because the government wouldn't give them any more time to do it.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Ninety-two hours.

Mr Murphy: I hear the member for Durham West yelling "Ninety-two hours." The interesting fact is that it's 92 hours of the government's own incompetence in this committee, incredible incompetence.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to correct the record at this time. I was not yelling out anything. I was quietly working away here and listening to what the member had to say. I think that accuracy would be helpful even in his speech.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. It's a distraction to the procedures.

Mr Murphy: Mr Mills, from Durham East, was the person who was yelling. The member for Durham West was probably yelling about dumps, but I don't want to get into that. I hope he's polished up his résumé.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview, twice this afternoon I've warned you.

Mr Murphy: I think it's symbolic of this government's disdain for democracy that it's not even prepared to listen to debate in this House and instead finds it necessary to heckle and talk over the people who are speaking.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Come on, get on with your speech.

Mr Murphy: They're doing that both with this motion to allocate time and in the yelling that various members such as the member for Oxford is making, and the member for Downsview and others, who are attempting to disrupt the proceedings by yelling across the floor, including the member for Fort York.

The member for Durham East mentioned 92 hours of debate in committee. What we had was a litany of 92 hours of incompetence by the government, which couldn't run its own agenda. The members on that committee on occasion were trying to fulfil their duties and they too were surprised, it seems to me, by the level of incompetence shown by the government in managing what was happening in that committee. I see the Chair of that committee, and I'm sure even he found it frustrating at times to watch how ill prepared the parliamentary assistant was. It was incredible to me.

Let's give a sense of that: We went into the clause-by-clause proceedings right after the public hearings, despite, I think, a reasonable request to say we needed some time, all of us, to put forward amendments to the bill. But the government said, "No, we need to go right ahead with this." Then we proceeded right after the weekend into clause-by-clause, and the government wasn't ready with its amendments; it filed them at the last possible moment, sending some on Saturday. Then we started to proceed, and it was clear they didn't have a good sense of what they wanted to do, and we started debating it.

In the course of those first three days, and I'm sure the member for Durham East will remember this, the government adjourned six or seven times while it tried to figure out what it was doing, tried to figure out how it was going to vote, what its own amendments meant, trying to work out its position as between the minister, the parliamentary assistant and the members of the committee.

I know there was some discord in that committee between the members, who were trying to do a good job, trying to listen to the public hearings. The minister's staff in the minister's office and the parliamentary assistant were trying to force unworkable compromises, but we went through that. At the end of it, the government said it wanted that three days to be adjourned so it could come back with a set of amendments that it thought could be workable.

Those first three days, despite the member for Durham East's mention of 92 hours, were frankly a waste of time. The government wasn't ready, didn't know what it was doing, didn't have its amendments ready. I'm sure the member for Durham East, when he looks in his heart of hearts, will recognize that those three days should not have happened, that they were a waste of time. You cannot count those as part of what we were doing. I'm sure also that the member for Durham East, when he gets up, will say that the 92 hours probably also include the public hearing time in that count. So it's not clause-by-clause consideration.

The government says, "We'll come back with some amendments when we're ready." So the House resumes, we come back, and what happens? In the first day of that committee, when we resume, the government stands down almost half of the first 14 sections we'd reached and then proceeds to stand down 10 more sections on the next day. So in a 54-section bill, where we have in total more than 200 amendments -- it's a detailed, complicated bill -- for half of the sections in the bill, the government has stood down the amendments, because it's not ready, because it doesn't know what it's doing, because of the incompetence in the management of this committee.

It was an astounding sight to see, Mr Speaker. You weren't sitting in the committee at that time and I'm glad you were spared that sight. What was clear in the committee was that the government was not ready at that point to proceed. In fact, what it was telling us through the parliamentary assistant, Mr Fletcher, the member for Guelph, I believe -- he said: "Oh no, we're going to have the amendments ready. Trust us." We asked, "Well, when are those amendments going to be ready?" He said: "In due course. We're not sure. We haven't decided."

We decided that until the government was ready, until it knew what it was doing and had achieved some level of competence at least, it was useless to continue in the committee. So we left that committee, and the government agreed to adjourn it and said, "We'll come back when we're ready."

Two weeks later, after having two weeks to finalize what it was going to do, the government gives us a set of amendments on the Saturday before the Monday the committee is to resume. But that's not all. It decides to give us another 10 or 15 amendments. The member for Fort York I'm sure will remember this. At 2:30 of the day the committee is to sit, they give us another 10 or 15 amendments. Frankly, they were delivered outside of what the rules say they should be delivered in. They're supposed to be delivered two hours before the beginning and they weren't. It was less than an hour.

We asked the parliamentary assistant, we asked the minister, and they could give no reason, because it was clear there was no reason, other than their own incompetence, for the failure to deliver those amendments on time.

Then we finally reach a point where the government is ready, we think, and we start to discuss the bill in committee. Since that time, we've gone from the

preamble to

section 50 in the bill. We have left four sections, two of which are the name of the bill and the proclamation date.

In substance, if the government had decided not to restrict democracy, not to show its disdain for the democratic process, we would likely have finished the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill within the very time that the government says it should be finished in, without restricting democracy, without limiting third reading debate, without denying people the opportunity to speak to this on third reading in the House.

There is no justification the government can show for doing this on this bill; simply no justification. I know the member for London South, Mr Winninger -- I hope I got his riding right; I see him here in the chair -- the member for Fort York, the member for Oxford, who was here for a while on the committee, and the member for Durham East will admit in their heart of hearts that there is no justification for this.

We worked hard in that committee on this bill. We proceeded with due pace, full consideration, and where there was not an appropriate area for lengthy debate, we agreed. There were votes where we agreed. They'll know in their heart of hearts that we moved honest and valuable amendments, which some of them, if they had thought about it, if they hadn't been stamped on by their own minister, their own parliamentary assistant, would have loved to have voted for.

I can see the member for Fort York sitting over there looking at me. I know of at least two that he would've been glad if his caucus had been able to vote for them, very glad, because I, for example, moved amendments to provide some opportunity for gays and lesbians to participate, and that member did not convince his own caucus to do it, could not convince his own caucus to vote for it.

It's kind of a shame because we have a bill that's assigned to certain designated groups but it excludes others. I can't see how the member for Fort York and others can stand up in this House and say that there is an absence of discrimination for those who are excluded from the terms of this bill.

Those are some of the kinds of debates we had in a full and frank way in that committee, and there is no justification for saying now that we need to put the jackboots on the debate, to stamp down democracy. It's just an outrage.

I think it's interesting that the government House leader said -- in the last some two weeks, this is the fifth time allocation motion. This was an amendment that I believe the previous government House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, the current Minister of Education and Training, introduced with a promise that: "Oh, no, it won't be used very much. We promise it won't be used very much". Five times in two weeks they've used a time allocation motion, stamping down on democracy.

I can remember the previous member for Scarborough West, Richard Johnston, and the previous member for Riverdale, Jim Renwick, very fine and respected members of the NDP party, railing against exactly the kind of thing you're doing here. Those were great members.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): That was the old days when you had responsible opposition parties.

Mr Murphy: Now the minister's yelling across the floor. I tell you, those two members were responsible opposition members, and they participated in debate and they wanted more debate, not less.

Unlike the government House leader, you count in the budget debate, the limitations you've brought in on concurrence in supply motions. There was an equal amount to the kind of debate that was allowed when the Progressive Conservative administration was in, when the Peterson administration was in.

Hon Mr Cooke: You probably wrote time --

Mr Murphy: Through you, Mr Speaker, to the Minister of Education and Training, I hope he participates in the debate. I'm looking forward to him standing up and justifying this outrageous stamping out of democracy that he stood up and said would not be used, that it would not be used in this House. I'm looking forward to his participation. I hope his presence here means he is going to do that, because I'd like to know how he's going to justify doing what Richard Johnston and Jim Renwick would never have done if they were still in this assembly -- ever.

I had the opportunity to work with Mr Renwick when I was an intern, worked four months with Mr Renwick, and he was a very excellent member of this chamber. I have to tell you that I think he'd be embarrassed about what the government House leader is doing and what the previous government House leader's participating in. The Minister of Education and Training sat with that member in this House, and I'm sure he agrees with me, if he's thought about it.

The unfortunate thing is that what we're really doing and what the government is doing is debasing this institution. Everything it's done is debasing this institution. It continues to do that time and time again.

I see the Attorney General in the House, Mr Speaker. I raised a point of privilege with you yesterday as to the Attorney General working in a way, it seemed to me, that debased this institution by arguing, against laws that this place had passed, in courts, which I find an outrageous thing to do. That's not in a partisan way. I think that is an Attorney General taking on a role that is inappropriate as an Attorney General with respect to this institution as a Legislature.

The policy decisions the Attorney General has made in that regard may very well be the right ones. That's not the issue. The issue is being responsive to the Legislature and responsive to the democratic will of the people as expressed by electing members in here. We may need to have rules that make it more workable, but this is not the way to do it, to stamp out democracy, to bring in motions that limit the debate.

Let's be frank. This is a very controversial piece of legislation and of ever-increasing interest. We had a list of people who wanted to speak to this bill that was very, very lengthy. I'm sure that as people come to be aware of what it's going to mean in the day-to-day workforces across this province, there's going to be even more interest.

But I'd like to talk, if I can, about some of the kinds of things that we started to talk about in the committee, the kind of issues that we'd like to discuss but that this stamping out of democracy is going to limit. For example --

Mr Sutherland: Oh.

Mr Murphy: The member for Oxford complains about this, but that's exactly what he's participating in by voting for this time allocation motion when it comes up. I'm sure he'll be voting for it, because he, like the other members of the committee, never once wavered from that party line. I suppose that's a tribute to the whip for the government, who is across the House here.

It's unfortunate that some of the members of the government caucus can't exercise independence and creativity, like the former member for Victoria-Haliburton and a few others.

Mr Sutherland: It could have been different.

Mr Murphy: Yes, it could have been different, Mr Sutherland -- I apologize; the member for Oxford.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You are going to be different. Everyone in this place knows it.

Mr Murphy: As always, I appreciate the irrelevant contributions from the member for Downsview.

I want to talk a bit about what kinds of issues we could talk about in the committee, but unfortunately because of the stamping out of democratic input this government is undertaking by this time allocation, by this closure, by this guillotine motion against debate -- I think it's interesting. One of the issues, for example, was an ad in Job Mart not that very long ago and I'd like to read part of it, if I can: "This competition is limited to the following employment equity designated groups: aboriginal peoples, francophones, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women."

The bottom line in this ad is that what it's saying is that white men need not apply because they were not going to be considered at all for those positions. The government withdrew this ad saying, "It was inappropriate." Those were the Premier's own words.

I decided to take the government at its own word, to trust it, so I moved an amendment in committee, taking the Premier's own words that this was not the kind of thing we should do. What we're trying to do within employment equity, with that kind of concept is to level the playing field, not put a thumb on the balance on one end but to level it, to make sure everyone's equal. So I put an amendment in that committee on behalf of the Liberal caucus to say that this kind of thing should not be allowed.

I know it won't be a surprise to you, Mr Speaker, nor to the member for Durham East, since he was there, that the government voted against it, confirming, I think, everyone's suspicion that when the time comes, this is exactly the kind of thing this government is going to do. It's going to say, "White men need not apply," because it was not prepared to support an amendment that prohibited this very practice from happening.

I think that's an unfortunate message. It's not just me and the Liberal Party or my leader, Lyn McLeod, who espouse this view; it's respected civil libertarians in this province as well.

Alan Borovoy, the head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has come out and said exactly the same thing. He said that this is an unnecessary and unjustifiable intrusion on civil liberties. Mr Borovoy supports employment equity, but he quite rightly points out that this will have the absolute opposite effect. This will damage any efforts in employment equity, because it's going to raise, and probably quite appropriately, the fears of white males in this province that they're going to be targeted, and that's not appropriate.

But that's not the only problem and the kind of issue that we could have discussed, except for this stamping out of democracy, this guillotine action by this government. One of them is an amendment that the Liberal Party made on behalf of our leader, Lyn McLeod, to say that at the end of the day, even after the government's process of supportive and positive measures and barrier removal and all the bureaucratese of the bill have been worked through, an employer must be permitted to hire the best-qualified person for the job.

Mr Speaker, again it won't be a surprise to you that the government voted against it, leaving the clear message that the most-qualified person doesn't have to be hired for the job, and that's not acceptable in these times. What we need to compete in the international economic environment are the best-qualified people who do the best work they can.

In fact, time and time again in those public hearings people came forward from the very designated groups this bill was meant, in theory, to assist and said: "We don't need a handout. We need a hand up. We've got the qualifications. We have the abilities. We just want fair access to the job." We say, absolutely, and we agree that when merit is applied, employment equity will be achieved. But the government doesn't believe that.

Laughter.

Mr Murphy: I see the member for Oxford laughing at that concept. I think that laughter is insulting to the people, for example, in my riding who have come from many communities and have got the qualifications. They say: "I have the merit for the job. Give me a chance to have at it." That's appropriate. I hope he doesn't come and laugh at some of the people in my constituency who come and say that.

I'm concerned as well about the incredible regulatory burden aspects this bill is going to impose on employers in this province. In their last ditch of amendments, employers are going to have to do surveys, prepare reports, prepare plans, file certificates and other information on groups, subclasses, subgroups of subclasses, an incredible array of additional paperwork at a time when many employers in this province are saying: "Enough. We're taxed to death. We're papered to death. We want to concentrate on doing well in the economy and getting some jobs created."

There's a way to do this bill in a more efficient way. The government wasn't prepared to listen. It prefers to create an unnecessary and incredible burden, and the worst

part is that some of these amendments -- I think it's important just to show you now. This is the batch of amendments. There are some 200 amendments in here, and to say that five or six days of clause-by-clause is inappropriate is just not on. This is a complicated bill. The government's amendments add up to 150 or 160 amendments. That's the kind of thing you need time to debate.

Also, they were so hurried in bringing forward these amendments that there were implications in this bill that the government never even thought about. One of them, about seasonal employees and the impact on the farm community, my friend the member for Northumberland will be speaking to. They had no idea of the impact until the member for Northumberland raised it and called the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They're suddenly shocked by this new initiative that they'd never heard about, never been consulted about. She will speak some about it.

I'd like, while I have the opportunity, to talk about some of the issues that unfortunately, because of the government's incompetence in this, we were unable to discuss, that I would have liked to have discussed. I'm wearing this red ribbon because it's World AIDS Day, as you know. Because of the efforts it's pouring into this, it was unable to assist the Homewood co-op in my riding, which is dedicating 25% of its units to people living with HIV and AIDS. The government wouldn't even consider that application, and this is within days of World AIDS Day.

It puts out a document extolling the virtues of its own policies and yet, when it comes down to the crunch, it won't deliver. I think the same is going to be able to be said about this employment equity bill.

I can think too about issues in health care that we won't be able to get to. The Wellesley Hospital in my riding has undertaken a fund-raising campaign, which I hope will be very successful, trying to raise $30 million to do the things that this government will no longer fund, will no longer assist the Wellesley Hospital to do. There are some fine programs, neighbourhood outreach programs to the Tamil community, St Jamestown in my community, that this government isn't prepared to assist.

I could think of the impact of employment equity in the real world. I think about Regent Park in my riding, where these people need jobs. Above all else, they need jobs. Nothing in this bill, not a single thing in this bill, will create a job for those people in Regent Park. Not a single thing. I see the member for Durham East sitting across from me. He, I know, when he stays in Toronto, lives in my riding. I'm sure when he goes by Regent Park, he'll know what I mean. What we need in my riding is jobs, and nothing in this bill will do anything for that.

One of the things that will help is some attention to maintenance in the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority buildings in the riding. Some of these buildings are coming up to 40 years that they've been around. They need some renewal. There's a great plan by the North Regent Park Residents' Association for a renewal of the Oak Street Resource Centre. I hope this government will consider that kind of thing as a renewal, as providing jobs in the community that this employment equity bill will do nothing about.

The other issues: There's a wonderful opportunity to create a parkland environment in the Don Valley area. There's the Rosedale ravine, which I think needs the protection of all levels of government to ensure that park, that green space in the heart of downtown Toronto, is preserved. I think of the brickworks on the Don Valley. I know the member for York East was touring that area with the Minister of Natural Resources, and I hope the government will do something about creating a park, because the Don River really does need to be brought back.

As Mark Wilson from the Bring Back the Don task force says, it needs to be brought back because it could be a thriving part of the downtown community if we can rejuvenate that area. The Ataratiri lands, the lower Don lands: Those need to be rejuvenated too. I hope the government will respond to the call to make the Don River and the Don River Valley part of a rejuvenated downtown core.

I can also think, finally, of the community witness program which I'm hoping to establish. I see the Attorney General here and I hope she'll cooperate, because for Regent Park and St Jamestown, unfortunately, there is a perception of great crime in the area.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member is not referring to the matter at question, and I wonder if the Speaker would so direct him.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your help.

Mr Murphy: Absolutely. I appreciate the Attorney General's intervention, because it shows she's listening. I'd like her to listen to this point about a community witness program, because in Regent Park and St Jamestown, which the government argues that employment equity should help, but it won't help a single bit, because there's not a job there -- but there's a community where drugs and crime, unfortunately, are extant.

One of the things I'd like to do, with the cooperation of the Attorney General, is bring members of the community into sentencing hearings, with the cooperation of crown attorneys at old city hall, and at the federal level with federal justice, to give evidence before judges so that when criminals who are convicted are brought up for sentencing, the judge is informed that maybe he or she should be a little harsher on those criminals if they're committing those activities in an area that has a particular problem, especially with drug-related activity.

In a period of seven weeks in the Regent Park area in the late summer and early fall, there were seven shootings. That's very upsetting to me, and I hope the Attorney General will participate in helping me help my own community. Employment equity won't help them, but initiatives like that will. Those are the important things people want to hear about. They want to hear about jobs; they want to hear about safety; they want a safe and secure community from which they can participate and they want a job. Employment equity isn't going to do that for them.

What I'd like to see the government do is to help people have a safe and secure community and to help people find a job. I haven't seen either of those from this government to date, and I hope they will assist me in assisting my community to do that from now on.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oakville South.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I take it there isn't two minutes to talk now, Mr Speaker?

Interjection.

Mr Carr: Okay. I wish I could say I was pleased to enter this debate, but I am not. Like the previous speaker, I wish we were dealing with some of the things the Premier said he would be doing, which is creating jobs.

Today we are debating a motion on the job quota and reverse discrimination bill, which is what it is. For those who don't know what is going to happen in the province of Ontario when this particular piece of legislation passes, I want to read out a copy of Job Mart. This is what I think woke a lot of people up in my riding. I had about a hundred calls after this was in, probably more than any other call I've had on any other issue: the deficit, health care, education, many pressing problems out there. I had more calls on this particular job quota situation.

I want to read what it says and I want you to see how it's written up. It says: "As a positive measure initiative