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

November 25, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I want to bring to the attention of the House a success story called My Brother's Place. My Brother's Place was named the Metro Toronto food bank's agency of the month in September 1992 and has many other endorsements from organizations, an NDP cabinet minister, a former NDP cabinet minister and many, many individuals in the social services community. Indeed, it is seen as the last and only resource for many who would otherwise fall through the cracks.

My Brother's Place is home to those who are making the very difficult adjustment from long-term institutionalization to life in their own community. Without a review, without an investigation, this six-year success story now finds itself struggling, with very, very little support in either human or program resources. The cuts have been so deep that six former full-time workers and 12 part-time staff now find themselves unemployed. A system of peer monitoring is being used to fill those lost positions.

In spite of this insurmountable difficulty, the board, the residents and the community at large continue to support one another. "Draconian" is the only word those who know My Brother's Place can find to describe this slash operation to a success story.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. It concerns your government's abandonment of community information centres in Ontario.

This province's 74 community information centres, such as Information Orillia, are the only autonomous, non-profit organizations that collect and distribute consolidated information in the province of Ontario. Among their services, community information centres distribute provincial information on behalf of every ministry, from Agriculture and Food to women's issues, and have special access programs for groups in their communities that have difficulty getting information, such as volunteer language interpreters and seniors services.

Community information centres know their communities and they know their clients have complex problems. They know exactly what human service information they require.

Community information centres are cost-effective. Their services cost $25 per hour, compared to $100 per hour for other information providers such as Bell Canada and the Ministry of Health.

In 1991, Information Orillia received 10,059 inquiries, of which 37% were referred to all levels of government. To October 21, 1992, Information Orillia had received 9,881 inquiries, of which 2,992 have been referred to all levels of government. Inquiries about general community services and consumer needs rank high on Information Orillia's statistical records.

Minister, I urge you to support the development of community information centres as key community-based information providers and reinstate a comprehensive provincial funding program to enable them to continue to provide the necessary service.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Last Friday a blow was delivered to my constituents in Pickering that was so intense, the shock has not yet begun to set in. The Interim Waste Authority dropped a bomb on the community that has started a tidal wave of outrage. I share this outrage. It's not fair. Pickering has done its share.

I am speaking about the IWA release of the short list of candidate sites. Four out of the five sites chosen for a Durham landfill site are all in Pickering, not to mention that right on the Pickering-Markham town line there looms a spot that may be the site of a huge Metro-York dump. Potentially, if sites T1 and M6 are chosen, Pickering will have to endure 1,000 acres of dumps that will receive garbage from Durham, York and Metro.

This is outrageous. The town of Pickering has already had to put up with decades of other people's garbage. Not only that, it has a nuclear power plant and a sewage treatment plant. Most importantly, the people of Pickering have never recovered from the scars of the expropriation of 20 years ago. That was when the federal and provincial governments took 40,000 acres of prime agricultural land and have left it to go fallow.

It's because of the years of inaction by government after government that these lands are now the target of the IWA. All five sites I have mentioned are provincially owned. As PACT has so correctly put it, "The IWA is practising the three Cs -- close, cheap and convenient."

I vowed to support the people of the town of Pickering. I don't believe that IWA must stand for "It's Whitevale Again." I don't believe it's Pickering's turn again. To the mayor, Wayne Arthurs, the board of the mayor's task force and the members of PACT, Pickering Ajax Citizens Together, I pledge to put an end to the uncertainty and allow the people of Pickering to get on with their lives once and for all.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The Minister of Natural Resources is sending out a confusing message to the communities and industries in northern Ontario that depend upon Ontario's forest resources for their economic survival. At the same time, he is creating an environmental deficit of huge proportions.

While the minister claims to be developing a sustainable forestry framework, the budget for reforestation within the MNR has been gutted. Compounding the problem, the minister is holding off making fundamental decisions regarding next year's reforestation activities. For example, we are nearing the end of November and we do not now know how many tree seedlings the ministry will fund for planting on crown land.

This decision should have been made and communicated to groups such as the private tree seedling growers association over two months ago. These growers remain in economic limbo until the new year as a result of the continued dawdling of this government.

Similarly, it is clear that forest tending is not a priority for this government. A decrease of over 30,000 hectares in forest tending has occurred since the NDP has taken office. The implications of this trend are severe for industries and communities which depend upon the economic spinoffs which the tending of this important resource provides.

While funding cutbacks are affecting the reforestation industry in Ontario in a tangible way, there is an increase of 11% in the salary-benefits budget and a 23% increase in the "information resource and policy budget" of this ministry. This is unacceptable.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm appalled by this government's insensitivity to the desperate needs of those who are trying to care for relatives with autism.

I recently received a letter from a woman who is trying, along with her family, to care for her 24-year-old twin brother who has autism. She writes, "Our family has to be tensed up to deal with emergency situations that can happen at any time, such as the adult running away, becoming upset in the car and smashing the windshield or windows or becoming violent at home and hurting other people."

This family cannot obtain a full psychiatric and neurological assessment for him. Although they live less than an hour's drive away from the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, which has a dual diagnosis program capable of such an assessment, they live outside the hospital's catchment area and there is no similar program servicing their community.

Despite this family's valiant and best efforts to keep their son at home, they were recently forced, because of exhaustion and stress-related health problems, to place him in a

schedule 1 facility.

My colleagues and I have raised the issue of the inadequacies of the special services at home program recently. I want to tell the Premier that the extreme difficulties being experienced by this family are the result of this government's failure to ensure that this critical and important program is adequately financed and administered. I urge the government to show compassion and provide assistance.

POLICE BRAVERY AWARDS

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): On the way in to Queen's Park this morning, I passed by a church and it had a sign outside highlighting an upcoming sermon. The sign simply said, "It is easy to be brave from a distance."

Today I and my government colleagues pay tribute to Sergeant Robert Higginson and Police Constable John Stemmler of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, both of whom recently received the 1992 Ontario Medal for Police Bravery, Ontario's highest award. Both received a specially designed medal in the shape of a cross, one of the traditional symbols of valour.

Unlike the sign I mentioned, both of these individuals demonstrated courage, superlative bravery undertaken without concern for personal safety, but not from a distance.

On August 13 of this year, Sergeant Higginson tried to block the escape route of two bank robbery suspects, who were very heavily armed with guns and explosives, by standing in front of their van. Seeing that Higginson was in danger of being shot or run over, Constable Stemmler drove his car in front of the suspects' van, preventing it from moving. The suspects then turned their loaded guns on both of the officers and only surrendered after a third officer approached the suspects from behind and ordered them to lay down their guns.

The residents of the Waterloo region thank both officers for their commitment, courage and excellence. If I may coin a phrase, without question, in the Waterloo region our cops are tops.

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Members of the Legislature have been receiving letters from people who have children and others who are mentally challenged in their families. I'd like to quote briefly from one of those letters.

"I have a special interest in writing to you concerning the mentally handicapped. They are threatening to cut back $5 million from the sheltered workshop system. We have fought long and hard to get our children out of institutions and back into our community. Please don't let us go backwards because of lack of funds and send our children back to the institutions."

Societies are judged by others by the manner in which they treat their most vulnerable citizens and surely among the most vulnerable are mentally challenged individuals of all ages. As this government spends millions of dollars on questionable self-congratulatory advertising and public opinion manipulation, as the provincial government lavishes funds on its unpopular ideological agenda, thousands of mentally challenged people of all ages may see their financial resources diminished.

I've always believed that we, in this assembly, are elected to defend those who cannot defend themselves, those who are not the privileged and powerful in our society. In this light, I urge the government to abandon its threat to reduce funding to sheltered workshops for mentally challenged people in our province. I urge us to do that, and the Premier and his minister to do that, in light of all of the letters that have come in and for the sake of those children who are most vulnerable in our society.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Today I would like to advise the Minister of Community and Social Services of the despair she has created in my riding by cuts to programs for disabled children and developmentally delayed adults.

How can she explain to Debra and Alf Mann and their daughter Susan, who have had help cut from 20 summer hours to 10, or to Gina and Doug Jeffries and their daughter Rebecca, who have been cut from 15 summer hours to 10? What should Alma and Charles Gilbert and their daughter Pat do now that they have been cut from 20 summer hours to nine, or Georgina and Pat Mulhall and their daughter Anita, who were used to 20 hours and now must make do with six in the summer months and none during the school year?

Marjory Shorthouse's grandson, Christopher, now gets only 15 hours instead of 28, while Wells Barlow, who took early retirement to care for his stepson, Gordon, has now had Gordon's seven hours cut off completely.

Each of these families, as well as Marg and Gord Pallister, whose 10 hours have been cut to six, understands the need for fiscal responsibility, but they do not understand why you spend almost half of your budget on a small percentage of people in institutions at the expense of those living at home.

Are these families in Grey and thousands like them all over the province to assume that this government no longer cares about them? Are they to assume that this government has changed its position and now wants to keep developmentally challenged children locked up in institutions?

They have asked me to ask you to spend your budget in a fairer and more equitable manner. They have asked me to ask you to remember the thousands of disabled kids who live out in communities among caring families and friends who need your help.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): During the past two and a half years the province of Ontario has been in the stranglehold of the worst recession since the Depression of the 1930s. Our NDP provincial government has, through the $700-million anti-recession program, the $2.3-billion Jobs Ontario program and the $1.1-billion Jobs Ontario Training program, created jobs and maintained jobs.

While these positive steps are helping in our recovery, we cannot, on our own, provide the push that it requires to make Canada and Canadians prosperous again. We need the private sector and the federal government of this country to come on board in these initiatives. While the private sector is coming on board, Prime Minister Mulroney and the federal government are not.

After the referendum vote, Prime Minister Mulroney captured headlines by saying that now is the time to concentrate on the economy. To date, Prime Minister Mulroney has been attending one $500-a-plate fund-raising dinner after another. While he has been building his Conservative Party's campaign coffers, he has done nothing about our economic woes.

It's time that Prime Minister Mulroney immediately call a first ministers' conference on the economy and come on board in helping us in our recovery.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): First, I would invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, and seated in the members' gallery west, a former long-standing member of the assembly and, indeed, a former minister of the crown from the riding of Huron, Mr Jack Riddell. Welcome.

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received a report from the commissioners of estate bills with respect to Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital, which reads as follows:

"Presuming the allegations contained in the

preamble of the bill to be proven to the satisfaction of the House and on the understanding that the word 'express' be deleted from

section 12 of the bill, we are of the opinion that it is reasonable for the bill in that amended form to pass."

Accordingly, pursuant to standing order 86(e), the bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LIMITATIONS REFORM

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I am very pleased to announce today that I will be seeking first reading of a new Limitations Act. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its landmark decision last month on limitation periods in incest cases, noted the "chorus calling for reform in this area of limitations law" and called Ontario proposals "welcome developments."

Specifically, these reforms will remove all limitation barriers to civil lawsuits by victims of sexual assault if the assault took place in a relationship of trust or dependency. In the case where a limitation period has already expired under the present law, the new provisions will apply if the defendant committed the assault, knowingly encouraged it or permitted his or her agent or employee to commit it.

In other types of sexual assault or in the case of physical assault in a relationship of intimacy or dependency, there would still be a limitation period, but it would not apply unless the defendant could show that the victim had for at least two years been fully capable of taking legal action and had not done so.

These provisions also implement the recommendations of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients where the abuse is committed by a health care practitioner. In addition, the Minister of Health will be tabling this afternoon legislation aimed at eliminating sexual abuse by health care professionals, which also responds to many recommendations of the task force.

In addition to the reform of limitation periods in abuse cases, this bill effects comprehensive and dramatic reform of limitations law in Ontario. It will have an impact on virtually every civil lawsuit in our courts. Ancient and complex rules that trap laypeople and lawyers alike will be replaced by a single two-year limitation period that will not start to run until the plaintiff knows or ought to know the material facts of the claim. In most cases, plaintiffs will have up to 30 years to discover these facts.

In cases involving health care practitioners and building designers and contractors, where the material facts are discovered relatively quickly, claims may be barred after 10 years. This will provide much-needed certainty to groups providing professional services who now face the prospect of indefinite exposure to legal claims. Under the present law, they are particularly vulnerable to problems of maintaining insurance, preserving records and shifting standards of practice over the whole of their career and even into retirement.

As a general rule, limitation periods will not run while the plaintiff is under the age of majority or is incapable of commencing proceedings because of a physical, mental or psychological condition.

While measuring the limitation period from the time of discovery of the material facts will help those whose cases are now barred prematurely, the reality is that most people know the necessary facts almost immediately. In these cases, the two-year limitation period will ensure that defendants will not have to wait long to find out if they are going to be sued and will be able to get on with their lives more quickly than before.

I will not go into further detail about the bill for the very good reason that the major principles have been before the public in the form of draft legislation for over a year. The principles themselves emerged from the report of a broad-based consultation group. The response to our extensive public consultation on the draft legislation has been strongly supportive of the consensus that has been reached.

I should add, however, that our consultations did identify two areas requiring ongoing review.

Limitations reform comes in the midst of a long-term project to reform defamation law. Accordingly, as an interim measure we will retain the structure of the current limitation periods for lawsuits against newspapers and broadcasters, with the option of moving to a two-year limitation period when the defamation law reform process is completed.

In the area of environmental harm, we have not yet included any exemptions to the 30-year ultimate limitation period. When the environmental bill of rights proceeds there will be an opportunity, if it is thought appropriate, to exempt the proposed new right of action created under that bill. We will also renew our discussions with groups interested in environmental matters to see if further exceptions should be made.

We particularly welcome comment on the defamation and environmental issues, along with comments on the bill generally.

This bill frees us from the constraints of 300 years of antiquated legal rules and marks the beginning of a new era of fairness and justice for everyone involved in civil litigation.

Once again, I would like to thank the Limitations Act consultation group, whose membership included representatives of the Ontario women's directorate, the Canadian Bar Association, persons with disabilities, building designers and contractors, hospitals, doctors and municipalities. I would also like to thank all of those groups and individuals who commented on the consultation draft bill.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I will be moving introduction of the Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act, 1992, today.

The amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act being introduced today are aimed at eliminating sexual abuse in health care.

These reforms are, I think, a very important step forward towards making our province a safer place to be. People seeking health care have the right to expect that the treatment they receive from a health care provider will be proper and not improper, that it will be caring and not damaging.

The mistreatment of patients by health professionals in the form of sexual abuse is never acceptable and it must not be tolerated.

The very tough penalties to be written into the law are intended to deter health professionals from abusing their power and breaking the relationship of trust they have with their patients.

The law must also assure anyone who becomes the victim of sexual abuse that they have effective recourse.

Through the college's disciplinary process the new law gives victims more power vis-à-vis the health professional against whom they are lodging the complaint. We hope this will restore the faith in the disciplinary process for victims who complain and that, as a result, the disciplinary process itself will become less daunting.

I would like to note that the Limitations Act that will be introduced today by the Attorney General, Howard Hampton, will mean that there will be no limitation period on victims who may choose to seek recourse through the courts for the sexual abuse that has taken place in a relationship of trust or authority.

The overall effectiveness of the Regulated Health Professions Act, including sexual abuse prevention, will be monitored by the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council. The advisory council, a new innovation under the RHPA, has the critical role of making sure that the legislation serves the public interest. Made up of people who do not work in the health professions or in the civil service, it should be meeting for the first time early in the new year and taking on this challenge.

On October 8 the Ministry of Health released its position paper, Taking Action Against Sexual Abuse of Patients. During the 30-day consultation period that followed we heard presentations from victims of sexual abuse, we held round table discussions with them and with health professionals, and we also received numerous written submissions.

We have seriously considered the arguments that were put forth by consumers and health professionals in the writing of these amendments that I will be tabling today.

One of the arguments made was against our proposed concept of three levels of sexual offences, each with different penalties. Victims said this could lead to a trivializing of incidents of sexual impropriety. Remarks, behaviour or acts of seduction that might be categorized as sexual impropriety could be just as damaging to the patient as sexual violation, they said. It was noted that all sexual abuse is a violation of a patient's rights.

Health professionals said the three levels of offences would make proving of charges more difficult, and they wanted simplification.

Mr Speaker, I want to now quickly run through some of the highlights of the act being introduced today and ask you to keep in mind the importance of the factor that this will apply to all 24 regulated professions.

As a result of the consultation, some of our proposals for action outlined in the position paper of October have changed. I'm proposing these amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act:

There should be one level of sexual offence, not three as earlier proposed, and that it be called sexual abuse. Three categories will be defined in law to cover sexual relations, touching of a sexual nature and behaviour or remarks. When it is found that sexual intercourse or other defined acts of sexual violation have occurred, the discipline committee will be required to revoke a health professional's certificate of registration for a minimum of five years and impose a fine of up to $35,000.

Penalties for other acts will not need to be specified because the full range, from reprimand to revocation of registration, will be available to the discipline committee. On this point, we want to establish that whether a patient has been subjected to wrongful behaviour, wrongful words or wrongful acts, it is all serious and it is all abuse.

We are proposing that any health professional who has reasonable grounds to believe a colleague of any regulated health profession has committed any act of sexual abuse must report it to an appropriate college. A failure to report will be a ground of professional misconduct.

If it is a patient who has disclosed the alleged sexual abuse, he or she will be asked to consent in writing to be identified in the report. It's a protection for that kind of privacy.

In the area of mandatory reporting, we intend to consult further with health professionals on extending the mandatory reporting provision to other forms of professional misconduct that would endanger the life or safety of a patient and to any conduct indicating incapacity or incompetence.

The RHPA will also require health professionals to make a report when they've learned of the sexual abuse of a patient through psychotherapy or counselling that they may be providing to another health professional. On this point, I have grappled with the very serious concerns of balancing public protection and the need to encourage health professionals who abuse patients to seek treatment. Incentives will be written into the legislation which I hope will encourage the individuals to seek the treatment they need.

We are proposing that the college disciplinary committees be given power to grant intervenor status to any complainant whose good character, proper conduct or competence is in question.

We support the involvement of the complainant in the hearing process in every reasonable way. On this point, I want to point out that the task force report asked for more from government, and on that I'm asking the Attorney General to inquire into what the role of the complainant should be in a disciplinary process and whether there should be any guaranteed rights. I believe that this issue should be addressed but viewed in a broader context of the existing law.

I am therefore asking the Attorney General to consider referring this issue to the Ontario Law Reform Commission so that it can make recommendations vis-à-vis all professional discipline hearings, including health. It is of concern to me that the existing disciplinary process may be discouraging persons from coming forward with complaints about health professionals.

We are proposing that there also be disclosure by defence counsel of the identity of experts and the substance of their opinions and the professionals that they will rely on at the disciplinary hearing.

Under current law, prior to a disciplinary hearing, the college, that is, the prosecution, must disclose the elements of its case to the accused. In practice, most colleges provide full disclosure. The professional, on the other hand, is under no obligation to disclose any part of his or her case.

This disclosure by the defence will help the prosecutor to prepare for any accusations towards the victim's actions or character that could come up during the hearing. This will help reduce the victim's sense of being traumatized again.

We propose that programs be established in each of the 21 colleges to finance and regulate funding for the victims and to help them pay for therapy and counselling. Health professions that enjoy the privilege of self-regulation must be prepared to accept the financial responsibility of compensating the victims of abuse by their members.

The issue of the compensation fund, how it would be financed and what it would provide for, was discussed extensively during the consultation by both victims and health professionals. I expect that debate to continue and I will move that the amendment act be referred to standing committee at second reading.

In closing, I want to thank all of those who participated in the consultation process. I want to thank the CPSO for initiating its task force. I want to thank Marilou McPhedran and all the members of the task force for the tremendous sterling work they've put into their recommendations to the college and to government.

I want to thank the victims of abuse who came forward and exposed their wounds and talked to us about the very real experiences they had and helped in many ways to guide us in the directions that we are taking today. I believe that was a very painful process. I believe it was painful for them to experience those feelings and to tell those stories again, but I hope it was also part of the healing process and that by seeing government take direct and swift action, it will also contribute to their healing.

Without their help, the help of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the ministry staff who have worked hard and long on this as well, I do not believe this process would have been initiated, almost two years ago now, or that in all likelihood we would be here today setting out on the road to passing this ground-breaking legislation.

LIMITATIONS REFORM

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I want to compliment the Attorney General for advancing this particular initiative. He always does extremely well when he's advancing the initiatives that were undertaken by Ian Scott. This legislation, in fact, the consultation process and the reform were initiated by Ian Scott and completed by this Attorney General, and I want to compliment him for it.

I also want to compliment David Cooke, the member for Kitchener in the last Parliament, who advanced a private member's bill on the Limitations Act. He was extremely concerned about victims' rights and their ability to have access to justice through the courts. I think he increased the profile of this issue and had a significant effect on this legislation as it came through the system.

I do want to say that this legislation does open up access to justice for many people. It makes technical improvements to the legislation which will improve credibility within the justice system and credibility within the legal profession. I think it's a very good initiative from that point of view.

However, it does address a number of issues affecting a number of people. It is very technical in nature, and so I urge the Attorney General that when this bill passes second reading that it go to public hearings across the province for two reasons.

I think there is an educational process to be accomplished by going out to public hearings across the province and I believe that, because it is very technical in nature, members of the legal profession and victims' groups across the province should have an opportunity to advance amendments and to gain a better understanding of this legislation.

I do want to compliment the minister on advancing this particular legislation, and we look forward to dealing with it in clause-by-clause and committee.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): In responding to the statement by the Minister of Health, I think it's fair to say we all recognize that trust between patients and health care professionals must be a very fundamental element of that professional-patient relationship.

On October 8 the Minister of Health released a discussion paper which presented the government's first response to the McPhedran task force report and also to the College of Physicians and Surgeons' own review. We've very pleased to see that the minister has responded in such a quick fashion to the report.

However, we do remain concerned as to whether there was sufficient time for the consultation that was necessary. We are considering all the issues associated with what will be a new reporting and disciplinary requirement for all the self-governing health professions. Was a one-month consultation period enough time to properly do that? We all want to be certain that these initiatives will work, particularly having the goal of zero tolerance. We are concerned that hasty decisions may hinder their acceptance and the practical way in which the regulations are implemented.

One thing I urge the minister not to forget is the role of the survivors. They urgently need and we must urgently encourage them to be part of the consultation process. I know they have up to date but, quite frankly, when we're looking at this, the survivors do not have the same resources as the professional groups do. They do not have the type of time, they do not have the staffing and they need this assistance, they need to be part of this consultation process and they must be heard. I know the minister will act on this.

The minister has outlined the mandatory reporting requirements to the college of all three of the categories of sexual offences: impropriety, transgression and violation. We certainly support the recommendations for mandatory reporting of sexual transgressions and violations. However, we share the concern of the College of Physicians and Surgeons with respect to the reporting of impropriety and we've joined with the college in urging the minister to reconsider this decision.

We are somewhat dismayed to see that the minister is raising issues in the policy that are not associated with the sexual abuse issues which have been considered. Placing incompetence and incapacity on the table, for example, by the back door, as it were, is in our view misplaced zeal. There should be further discussion in this regard and the working relationship between the newly regulated professions and existing disciplines should be more completely established before these protocols are put in place.

The minister is right to want to put these issues on the table, but we believe that she's somewhat premature in doing so. We do commend the minister on her initiatives and hope she takes our comments into account.

LIMITATIONS REFORM

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Dealing with the Limitations Act, it's a good thing that we're finally getting to some reform of this area. But I will tell you, there's no panacea for reforming this area because there are always going to be people who are going to miss limitations. If you condense limitation periods, I suspect there are going to be even more people who are going to miss them.

However, it's a good thing to have a standard limitation period. It's a good thing that we no longer will have the favouritism to certain areas such as the crown seven-day notice periods, six-month Public Authorities Protection Act issues, and I think that will be a benefit to those practising law and their clients.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to rise and respond to the Minister of Health's statement regarding the issue of sexual abuse of patients. Minister, I find it extremely ironic that during this week you would be trying to take the moral high road and restore the tarnished image of your government by making this announcement today. But your making this announcement allows me to remind you that the moral high road is achieved through action, not words, and the Piper debacle speaks volumes.

Many people have worked long and hard in this province and in this country to ensure that the past conduct of victims cannot be used against them in legal proceedings except in very limited circumstances. Yet Pipergate shows the extent to which your government is willing to go to smear a woman who claims to be a victim of sexual abuse.

In your remarks in today's announcement, you said: "People...have the right to expect that the treatment they receive from a health care provider will be proper and not improper, that it will be caring and not damaging."

Minister, I suggest you get your own house in order. Your government's attempt to make public Judi Harris's criminal record flies in the face of any measures that you have announced today. I don't know how you can remain part of a government that on the one hand advocates victim rights while at the same time openly and very directly further victimizes the victims of sexual abuse.

Now we learn that many victims and former inmates of the Grandview Training School for Girls are afraid to come forward. Your government's actions have been outrageous and today's announcement shouldn't have been made in light of the fact that Judi Harris has not received an apology from John Piper.

You should be ashamed to be part of a government that allowed Mr Piper and his dirty tricks campaign to further victimize women who have been very courageous in coming forward with complaints of sexual abuse.

I think that before you made today's statement you should have asked Mr Piper earlier today to apologize to Judi Harris. It is ironic that you can try to take the moral high road today while your government is so badly tarnished by Pipergate.

I haven't had the opportunity to review the specific legislative draft you'll be tabling in the House this afternoon, but I do want to say that I hope before the committee hearings start -- and I hope those hearings are delayed until later next year so that health care professionals and groups have the opportunity to review the draft legislation -- you'll take a hard look at the message your government has sent out and the damage John Piper has done.

Today you tell health care professionals that they have to get their houses in order, that they have to get their acts together. I say that there's a little soul-searching to be done on your side of the House before you lecture health care professionals.

Again, Minister, I don't know how you could get up today and make this announcement. It's an important announcement, but its importance and its relevance are lost in light of the actions of your government. Again, you should be ashamed. I would be ashamed to be part of that cabinet. Backbenchers in that government and all cabinet ministers should be ashamed.

John Piper must be made to apologize to Judi Harris, or victims of sexual abuse will have no confidence in either the announcement you made today, Minister, or any further actions taken in the area of sexual abuse by your government. I demand an apology. Later this afternoon you should talk to John Piper. He must apologize if your government is to have any credibility in this area.

REPORT ON RACE RELATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It was five weeks ago that a report was due before the House. The report on the Race Relations and Policing Task Force that came out today was long awaited. It was delayed by the Premier's office, I'm sure, and delayed by the Solicitor General. An important report like this came out today and not one statement by the minister about something that has been waited for.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Scarborough North -- I appreciate his point of interest. There is not anything out of order. As the member knows, there is nothing in the standing orders to compel ministers to make statements.

Mr Curling: Could I give the minister an opportunity -- he's here, the report is here; it's five weeks late -- to get unanimous consent to make some comments on this very, very important report.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the minister to make his statement? No, I heard a no.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOHN PIPER

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Premier. Mr Premier, I have been reliably informed that the Ontario Provincial Police do not have in their possession the document which Mr John Piper offered to the Toronto Sun last Tuesday. Mr Premier, can you confirm this fact?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Absolutely not. I am not going to comment, on a daily basis, nor do I think the member should, on any kind of basis, on the police inquiry. I have no idea, and should not have any idea, with respect to the ongoing conduct of the police investigation.

I would suggest to the honourable member that in order to maintain the integrity of the process -- and I say this to the honourable member -- he himself should be very wary of commenting on a daily basis in terms of what he has heard with respect to the ongoing investigation.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I think the honourable member really has to consider what he is doing. He is directly asking the Premier of this province --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- to comment on a police investigation as it is ongoing. Nothing could be more improper --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and the honourable member should know that in his heart of hearts. In his heart of hearts, he should know that.

Mr Conway: At noon today the information officer for the Ontario Provincial Police told my staff that they could not confirm the whereabouts of the central document in the Premier's much-vaunted police investigation. Is the Premier telling this House that he is not aware of the fact that at noon today the police are telling us they cannot confirm the whereabouts of the document which Mr John Piper offered the Toronto Sun?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say very directly to the honourable member, let's get this in some perspective. The OPP are carrying out an investigation on an ongoing basis. I have no idea what conversations took place between an information officer and members of his staff.

All I will say is that the statement he has relayed to us is substantially different from the statement that led into his first question, substantially different. First of all, he says it isn't there. Then he says they can't confirm.

I can only say that I think it is highly improper for the honourable member to be asking questions with respect to an ongoing police investigation. I think that raises very basic questions about his tactic and his strategy. I have no intention as Premier, I don't think any member should have an intention, of interfering in any way, shape or form with an ongoing police investigation. Nothing could be more improper than for a Premier or indeed, I would argue, for any other member of the Legislature to so interfere. Nothing could be more improper.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North has the floor; his final supplementary.

Mr Conway: On the basis of the information which I have received from the information office of the Ontario Provincial Police, I believe that the provincial police do not have the central document at issue in this whole question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: Let me ask the Premier this question. If the police do not have, as I believe they do not have, the central document --

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs, Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Even though you have no evidence.

Mr Conway: I have the evidence of a conversation with the information office of the Ontario Provincial Police. If the government, as I have asked on two previous occasions this afternoon, can indicate to the contrary, I'm quite prepared to accept that information.

But let me ask the Premier this: The Premier has said that he has undertaken, or launched, or caused to be launched, a police investigation into this matter. The Premier, as a lawyer, will know that if the provincial police do not have that document which Mr Piper offered to Ms Dawson of the Toronto Sun, there can be no police investigation, for there will be nothing to investigate. Our lawyer Premier must surely understand that. Would you not agree, Mr Premier, that in the absence of that document there can be no meaningful police investigation?

Hon Mr Rae: This is preposterous, this is truly preposterous. The member is building fiction upon fiction upon fiction, he is building baseless allegation upon baseless allegation and thinks he's making an argument. This is a commonsense question. The information was public on Friday morning. As soon as that information was made public, the matter was referred to the OPP. The OPP have complete carriage of an investigation. It is absolutely preposterous to suggest that the honourable member is somehow going to be, on a ticker-tape basis, sitting at his desk getting the information from the OPP saying, "How is it going today?"

What does this say? What does this say about the new standards of the Liberal Party of Ontario? They're the ones who are preaching standards.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Even on the basis of a simple basis of law, your question is without any foundation whatsoever.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: I want to return to my main point. On the basis of the information I have today, I believe the key document is not in the possession of the OPP. That's what's at issue and that document is missing, and if the government can tell me I'm wrong on the basis of evidence, I am quite willing to stand corrected.

My next question on the basis of the missing key document: I want to go back now to last Friday, Saturday and Sunday. On Friday morning, the Premier's appointed director of communications and good friend, John Piper, resigned in disgrace. Very shortly thereafter, the Attorney General's department launched a police investigation. Later that day, Friday, the Premier, returning from his Asia tour, said at an airport press conference that he was shocked and appalled and did not condone the action.

Two and a half days afterwards, on Sunday evening, under cover of darkness and in the company --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the member place his question, please.

Mr Conway: Two and a half days after the Attorney General's department caused the police investigation to begin, and with no reference to the police as to what they were about to do, the disgraced John Piper, in the company of Bob Rae's chief of staff, returned to this building in the middle of the night and removed substantial papers and other information.

I ask the Premier, in light of what the Attorney General's department did Friday morning, in light of what you said Friday night, how was it possible for that to have happened? Particularly, how was it possible for Mr Piper to be accompanied by your chief of staff, Ms Morrison, to allow Mr Piper to remove from this place in the middle of the night all kinds of potentially very relevant information to any kind of inquiry?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member opposite is building an argument that's based on hot air. It started with hot air and it's ending with hot air. He's making all kinds of allegations, all kinds of representations, that bear no relationship to the facts. The OPP was given carriage of this matter on Friday. Legal advice was sought from the Deputy Attorney General with respect to the removal of certain of Mr Piper's personal effects from the office.

He's now making allegation that all kinds of government documents were taken, which allegation is quite false. He describes it as under the cover of darkness, in the middle of the night. Mr Piper made no secret of the fact that he was here, that he was coming to take away his personal effects, and that's what he did, under close supervision. He signed in and he signed out, and he took out information under the advice of the Deputy Attorney General. So the suggestion here that there's something else going on -- I mean, he starts his question on that assumption.

The honourable member is a man of great imagination, but I suggest to him that his imagination is getting carried away. I would also suggest to him that in all fairness to the Ontario Provincial Police, he ought to let them do their job --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- which is precisely what I intend to do.

Mr Conway: Let's just recall a couple of facts. It was quite clear in this Legislature yesterday that as of yesterday, Mr Rae did not know what happened in this place on Sunday night. Mr Rae, the Premier, reported to this House yesterday that according to Ms Morrison, no log was kept of any of the information or materials removed by Mr Piper on Sunday evening. So we know, according to the Premier himself, buttressed by evidence from his chief of staff, that no record was kept of what was removed from this place on Sunday night.

Mr Premier, my question is, how will the Legislature, how will Judi Harris, how will the people of Ontario ever know what was removed Sunday night by the disgraced John Piper just hours before the police investigators could come and begin their work? How will any of us, including Judi Harris, ever know what was removed Sunday night?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to advise the honourable member, in the light of his first question, that I've just been told that Superintendent Bob Guay, who is the official spokesman of the OPP, actually said he would not confirm whether or not they had the document because he would not comment on the status of an ongoing investigation. Is the honourable member going to apologize for the premise of his first question?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr Conway: My question remains, Mr Speaker. Let there be no mistake where the burden of responsibility lies in this regard. It wasn't my chief of staff or my communications adviser who somehow accessed confidential information from the justice system and was willing to use that against a defenceless citizen. That didn't happen in my office. That happened in the office of the Premier of Ontario.

My question remains: What went out of this place on Sunday night? What was in those boxes? How can the Premier assure the Legislature and the people of Ontario, when hours before the police could come, Mr Piper was somehow allowed, under the supervision of Ms Morrison from his own staff --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A political appointee.

Mr Conway: -- a political appointee -- to come to this place and remove that information?

The Premier talks about the police. Why weren't the police along with Ms Morrison Sunday night to supervise the removal of those papers and things? If the Premier is such a slavish devotee of police inquiries, why were not the OPP alongside Ms Morrison Sunday night to supervise the removal of those papers?

Hon Mr Rae: Quite simply, because of the advice of the Deputy Attorney General, and the advice he received was that that was not necessary in light of the fact that all Mr Piper was doing was removing his personal effects.

I just want to say to the honourable member that I'm taking responsibility for what's going on. When is he going to start taking responsibility for the questions he's asking and for the phoney premises on which they're based? Maybe he'd better start paying some attention to taking responsibility for some of the allegations and the questions he's asking in this House.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Premier, and I think one could legitimately question whether indeed the Premier is taking responsibility for his trusted confidant's actions.

The Premier has indeed condemned Mr Piper's actions, but I think it's important to understand what Mr Piper was attempting to do. One could fairly draw the conclusion that his actions were part of an orchestrated effort to rehabilitate the reputation of the member for Kitchener, Mr Ferguson. One part of that effort was the unusually well publicized elevation of Mr Ferguson to parliamentary assistant in the Ministry of Transportation. Another part, apparently, was Mr Piper's effort to smear the complainant in regard to allegations against Mr Ferguson.

Mr Premier, can you indicate if you have initiated an internal review to determine what happened in respect to the Piper matter and what other actions Piper took in regard to Mr Ferguson's problems, and if not, why not?

Hon Bob Rae: I have made the decision -- it's a decision I've taken on some reflection and for which I take responsibility -- that an internal review must wait for the outcome of a police investigation, and I'll tell the member very directly why: for the simple reason that any investigation carried out by me or members of my staff would be running parallel to and at the same time as that of the police inquiry.

My own view has been that it's better in terms of the interests of justice and of ensuring that there's no hint or suggestion of any interference of any kind by me or by anyone else on my staff; that any information that is received simply be directed to the police, and that no other inquiry should be launched or made by this office or by me.

That's a decision I've made. I've made it after reflection, and upon reflection, I think it's the wisest course.

I can assure the honourable member, of course, that once the police investigation has been completed, I will take whatever further action is necessary to indicate clearly to the public, to everyone concerned, our administration's and my administration's commitment to fairness, to integrity and to dealing with and getting at the root of this problem. That's the way in which I've decided to handle it and I think on balance it's the correct way to handle it.

Mr Runciman: The police investigation --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Runciman: The police investigation is focused on one specific concern and that's the use of Ms Harris's court records with respect to release into the media. That's all it's looking at. I think there are other concerns that the Premier has a responsibility to deal with. Some of these, I believe, are that he should be inquiring as to whether Mr Piper spoke to a crown attorney, to Mr Ferguson's lawyers, to anyone else connected with the case. What about other people in the Premier's office? Were they involved in this effort to rehabilitate Mr Ferguson's reputation?

It seems incomprehensible that a senior adviser to the Premier has engaged in an effort to smear a woman who has been victimized over and over again throughout her life, and the Premier is not sufficiently concerned, apparently, to try to determine how widespread, how far-reaching that effect has been within his government, and especially within his own office. How can you justify your own failure, Premier, to determine just how far the rot extends within your own government and your own office?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member says he knows what the police investigation is going to focus on and he knows what it's all about. I would say to the honourable member, I don't prejudge what questions the police are going to ask. I don't think anyone should. I don't think anyone should prejudge the outcome of any police investigation in any way, shape or form. I think that's inappropriate.

He then goes on to say that somehow what we're doing reflects a lack of concern. I say in all honesty to the member, I have wrestled with this thing -- I think everybody who knows me knows that's the case -- in terms of what is the best way, the most effective way, to ensure that we will get to the bottom of whatever is there and that we will deal with it in the fairest way possible to everyone concerned.

My judgement has been that, initially, it requires a police investigation. It requires a thorough review by them and, as I say, if there's further action to be taken, it will be taken.

But I would suggest to the honourable member that even some of the things he suggested would be very inappropriate being launched by me at this particular moment and at this particular time with regard to what the police are doing. That is my very strong view with regard to the suggestions he's made. I don't think it would be appropriate for the carriage of justice in this province for the Premier to be dealing with the question in the way he's suggested at this particular time, precisely because there is a police inquiry going on.

Mr Runciman: To be polite, that is so much hot air and nothing else. I have spoken to Inspector Guay. I spoke to him today, and he is focusing solely on Mr Piper's meeting with a representative of the media and his offer to release court documents to that representative of the media. That's what they're looking at to see if there was indeed any violation of the law in respect to his activities.

What I'm talking about is a much broader investigation, a much broader inquiry into what happened in respect to a variety, perhaps, of officials within your own government and your own office in respect to the apparent efforts to rehabilitate Mr Ferguson's reputation.

I believe of all of the blunders and misconduct that we've witnessed over the past couple of years in respect to ministers and aides of this government, this is undoubtedly the most serious, because it involves allegations of abuse of power directly from the Premier's office. It's beyond the realm of possibility that a trusted senior adviser to the Premier would engage in this kind of activity unless he thought it was in accordance with something his Premier would want done.

The Premier says his critics are out to lunch, and I say to the Premier that he's the one who's been out to lunch and continues to be out to lunch. He hired Mr Piper, he's the head of a government where a senior political appointee in his office attempted to smear a female victim and he's the individual standing in this House today refusing to undertake an investigation into the extent of the rot in his own office.

The Speaker: Could the member place a supplementary, please.

Mr Runciman: I remind the Premier that his office isn't a private one; we're paying for it. Taxpayers are paying for it to the tune of almost $3 million. The people have a right to know. Will the Premier today commit himself to a full inquiry of activities in his government and his office surrounding the Ferguson affair?

Hon Mr Rae: With due respect, I say to the honourable member that if he's suggesting, in light of all that he said before in preparation for the question -- and I think it is contained in the question, so let him make the allegation. If he's saying that this is something I wanted to have done -- is that what he's saying? I heard him say that.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Yes.

Hon Mr Rae: If he's saying that, I've known the honourable member since I got here 10 years ago, and I say to the honourable member that his suggestion --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: This is very clear. I just want to say to the member that his suggestion is profoundly offensive to everything that I believe in and stand for in public life. The idea that I would condone or support or in any way approve of what took place is completely wrong and completely false. I think I've indicated earlier that what took place is unacceptable. It does not in any way correspond to what I would support or agree with or condone in any way, shape or form, and I think everybody who knows me and knows anything of what I've stood for in my 15 years of public life would know that's the case.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): We know what your speeches were like in opposition. We know exactly what you stand for: power at any price.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Parry Sound has been recognized.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Premier, I think we're dealing here with a question of responsibility, and I think it is just that simple. Pardon us if we on this side of the House and the media are slightly confused about what ministerial responsibility is and isn't in your government. I have several very direct questions to you, sir, as the Premier. Who hired Mr Piper? Who brought him on to the public payroll? To whom does Mr Piper report? What was his job description, and what was his salary?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the honourable member will know that Mr Piper had an order-in-council appointment, which, needless to say, has been revoked effective November 20; that he reported both to the principal secretary in my office as well as to me and that this was well known; that he had responsibility on an ongoing basis for the overall communications work and effort of the government, and his salary is set within a range that's the range of deputy ministers, and I don't think there's any question about that.

I would say to the honourable member, in anticipation of perhaps some future questions, I accept my responsibilities to deal with a situation which I find to be completely unacceptable, and that's exactly what I'm doing. I think I also have to deal with it in a way that shows a degree of respect for due process and a degree of respect for the independence of the police. I would have thought this is something the honourable member would appreciate and understand. It's not an easy thing to have to deal with. I just don't think you can run three or four parallel investigations at the same time.

Mr Eves: The Premier's asking us and the public to believe that Mr Piper acted totally independently, totally on his own in this matter; never discussed his actions with anyone, with no assistant. He didn't discuss his actions, as you just said, with your principal secretary, to whom he's supposed to be reporting, as you just said.

Mr Piper was responsible to no one in your office. Do you not think that, at the very least, the person to whom Mr Piper is supposed to report is just as responsible for Mr Piper's actions as he is and that person should step aside, pending the police investigation?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say directly to the honourable member that this matter is under review by the police with respect to Mr Piper's action. I think it's very clear that the decisions that have been made by him are ones I do not condone or support, and I think it's very important that the police investigation be allowed its independence and that respect be paid to that.

I would say to the honourable member, let's not prejudge anything with regard to what took place or what didn't take place. That has to be determined initially by the police. As I say, if further inquiries are required or further reviews are necessary, I will do whatever I think is necessary to get to the bottom of a situation I've found to be quite unacceptable.

Mr Eves: There are two different things here. The police investigation is one thing. I presume the only reason you'd have a police investigation is to investigate some sort of criminal activity. That has nothing to do with ministerial responsibility. We have seen your government and various ministers in your government try to get off the hook of ministerial responsibility time and time again.

We saw a Solicitor General whose constituency assistant wrote a letter to a justice of the peace. We saw a Minister of Correctional Services who should have known what was going on in his ministry, but didn't. What happened to those two people? Nothing happened to them until you decided to politely shuffle them aside in the next cabinet move. Yet we have a Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations who appears as a Sunshine Boy and he gets turfed immediately. We have a Minister of Health who indirectly and inadvertently mentions a confidential name and she has the class to step aside.

We have a Minister of Northern Development who deliberately smears a doctor's reputation and then admits that she lied. She gets to stay because she has the famous dad.

Now we have responsibility here, but this time, sir, with all due respect, the responsibility is yours. Are you going to accept it or not?

Hon Mr Rae: If the member is asking -- I think he's saying directly -- I think the member for Bruce was raising it the other day, saying that there should be an election called instantaneously and that should be the response. I will say to the honourable member, we've taken the steps. I took the steps and I'm taking the steps that I believe are necessary to ensure that the right thing is done and that the right thing happens.

I would say to the honourable member, I indicate very clearly how I feel about this issue and the steps I intend to take to deal with it. But I would say to the honourable member, that's the course I have set. There's other business upon which this government is engaged and upon which this province is engaged and I'm preoccupied with those as well.

I've set a course with respect to the police investigation. Let that investigation take its place with respect to what has happened. As I said to the member, if anything further needs to be done, it will be done. That's the direction we're taking.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: Accepting that any investigation -- a police investigation, a legislative inquiry, a judicial inquiry -- will only be as good as the information that inquiry can obtain, I want to come back to Sunday night and I want to ask the Premier once again about the conduct within his departmental office, which is the highest office in this province.

Mr Premier, having regard to what you said on Friday night about your disgust at what Mr Piper had done, having regard to what the Attorney General's department had done earlier Friday morning in terms of causing the police investigation to begin, how was it possible that your chief of staff could have come back to this place Sunday night with the disgraced Mr Piper, neither one of whom bothered to call the OPP or the justice department to tell them what they were about to do -- how was it possible for Ms Morrison, as your chief of staff, to come here Sunday night and allow the withdrawal of papers and things that will clearly bear on any inquiry?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm going to just say to the honourable member that his first question that he asked today was based on a false premise. It was based on a conversation which he says his staff has. He says this is his hard information and this is his revelation. We then hear from Inspector Guay saying that of course he couldn't confirm or deny, because it's the policy of the OPP not to comment on an ongoing investigation.

The honourable member for Renfrew North didn't have the courtesy, and still doesn't have the courtesy, to stand up in this House and say: "The premise of my first question was quite wrong. I apologize to the House for having given the impression that I knew something that in fact I don't know." I would say to the honourable member that he's done it again, because he stated in the preface to his question that there was no contact at all with the justice department.

I have indicated in this place in answer after answer that Miss Morrison indicated very clearly that she spoke directly to the Deputy Attorney General, that inquiries were made with respect to what was the appropriate thing to do and what was the way to do it. She followed the advice that she was given, Mr Piper left with documents and a clear memo is left to file with respect to what took place.

I would say to the honourable member that so much of the premise, so much of what he is saying and so many of the allegations he is making are without any foundation whatsoever. It's time he took some responsibility for the quality of the questions he's asking, quite apart from his concern about anything else.

Mr Conway: I can assure this House that I did not come here this week planning to be questioning the leader of the government about this kind of misconduct in his office. I want to be very clear. On the basis of my conversations with officials at the OPP, I believe that as of noon today the Ontario Provincial Police did not have the key document. Let there be no confusion in anyone's mind about what I believe in that connection. If I am wrong, I will be pleased to be shown that I am wrong.

The information here is absolutely essential, and I ask you and all reasonable members to think about what we're being asked to believe and accept. A high official in the highest office in the province has committed a grave misconduct, and two and a half days after he left and a police inquiry began he was allowed, in the company of the Premier's top aide --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Conway: -- to come to this place and remove boxes of information without anyone telling either the police or the justice department that he was going to do that.

How, in this world of Shelley Martel and John Piper, did this happen? How could this have happened, Mr Premier? Don't you understand that your response to date, a very limited police inquiry which, as the member for Leeds-Grenville said, is not going to deal with the questions of conduct in the Premier's office, is a wholly inaccurate response to the questions of public morality and private conduct in the highest office in the province, namely yours?

Hon Ms Gigantes: What was the question?

Hon Mr Rae: I heard a mountain, a torrent of rhetoric. I heard a series of allegations and level upon level and higher and higher platitudes of rhetoric. I did not actually hear a question with respect to what he said but I would say to the honourable --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm sure he says there was one. Maybe somewhere in the interstices of whatever it is that he said we will be able to distinguish a question. But I would say in response to the honourable member, and I say it really in connection with what I said yesterday, that I take this issue too seriously to take him very seriously at all with respect to what he's asking.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is for the Premier. Premier, today you hide behind the OPP investigation and you won't answer questions because an investigation is going on. I understand that on Friday you called in the OPP to perform this investigation. On Sunday night boxes of documents were taken out of Mr Piper's office. What I ask you very specifically is whether the OPP were contacted before anyone went into Mr Piper's office to remove anything. Was the permission of the OPP given to do that?

Hon Mr Rae: I can tell the member directly that the Deputy Attorney General was contacted with respect to what was appropriate conduct.

Mr Harnick: My question was specifically, was the OPP contacted? You were the one who called in the OPP on Friday. What I say to you, Premier, is, who the hell is the deputy minister? He wasn't running this investigation. The OPP were. For you to have called anybody in or permitted anybody to take those documents is tampering with evidence. I put it to you, Premier, that somebody in your office is guilty of obstructing justice if that's what happened. I put it to you that this investigation had better deal with that aspect.

Hon Mr Rae: The member has just made an allegation. I'm sure there'll be lots more before we're all through. If you've got an allegation to make, I say to the honourable member, you know how to do it and you know where to go. Say it outside. Say it outside and make it very clear, if that's what you're saying. I know the honourable member, and I have a certain degree of respect for him. I just would say to him very directly that if he's making an allegation with respect to me or somebody working with the government --

Mr Harnick: The facts lead to that allegation.

Hon Mr Rae: Oh no, you're not. Now he's not. Now he's withdrawing it. No, no. You can't have it both ways.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: You can't have it both ways.

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: One minute you rely on the deputy minister and one minute you hide behind the OPP. Which is it?

Interjection: Say it outside.

Mr Harnick: I just may say it outside.

Interjection: Say it outside.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Why not say it outside? It's a fact. You let Piper into his office, he's got the evidence, and that's a fact.

The Speaker: Order. Certainly, if we all went outside it would be quieter in here.

Mr Mahoney: Well, let's go. Why don't we all go? We're not doing anything in here.

The Speaker: But with a measure of restraint perhaps the member for Willowdale would have an opportunity to pose his supplementary.

Mr Harnick: By way of supplementary --

The Speaker: No, I just about gave something away. That was apparently your supplementary.

Interjection: Oh, let him go ahead.

The Speaker: He's had one supplementary.

New question.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. During constituency week, on November 12 I had a town hall meeting in the township of Thurlow, and Edith and Wilburt Jeffs --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I can't hear the question. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

Mr Johnson: As I was saying, my question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. On November 12, during constituency week, I had a town hall meeting in my township of Thurlow, and Edith and Wilburt Jeffs came to me with a very tragic story.

They told me of how they had invested $130,000 in some stock that might be familiar to some members in here, like Denison and Campeau and, tragically, because of very bad information given by their financial services broker, they lost that money, $130,000, their life savings.

I would like to ask the Minister of Financial Institutions, do Mr and Mrs Jeffs have any recourse to recapture any of the dollars they lost as a result of very bad information given to them by the financial services broker?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): Unfortunately, although the member's question is a very important one and a serious one, currently in Ontario the Ontario Securities Commission is responsible for the regulation of the investment sector.

The securities commission has the ability to suspend or cancel the licence of a brokerage firm or salesperson and to forward information to the police around a police investigation, around any matters of a criminal nature that might be uncovered in its process of regulating a brokerage or a salesperson.

But in terms of the question of compensation itself, the losses suffered by people from the operations in the stock market and the loss of value in stocks which they've purchased, those are things they would have to pursue in the courts, through civil remedy, in terms of the present system.

Mr Johnson: In talking to Mr and Mrs Jeffs, I found out that this problem isn't unique, that the problem of bad recommendations, bad information given to potential investors by financial services brokers, is not unique to their particular problem of losing their $130,000 life savings. In fact this is widespread.

I was wondering if the Minister of Financial Institutions could tell me if there's any legislation pending. Are there any changes to current legislation that would give them more security in their investments?

Hon Mr Charlton: The question that the member raises is also an important one. We have received some recommendations from the Ontario Securities Commission and are proceeding to develop legislation and regulations that will give the securities commission more effective enforcement mechanisms in certain circumstances to deal with situations like this.

Unfortunately, the only protection for loss, for compensation of loss, is the industry protection fund, which deals with the actual insolvency of companies themselves. The actual losses around investments made are not protections which are covered by that fund.

The only protection in that respect that we're considering that is already part of the system is the civil remedy protection. We're trying to beef up the system in terms of the OSC's ability to in fact ensure the appropriate operation of the marketplace and of brokerages and salespeople out there.

JOHN PIPER

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Premier, concerning Will Ferguson, the member of the government who was forced to resign as a result of the allegations of Judi Harris, a member who is still subject to an OPP investigation, a member who, incidentally, about three weeks ago was appointed a parliamentary assistant, with an increase in salary of over $10,000: some message to the victims, some message to the justice system that has to investigate that matter.

Mr Premier, my question relates to his involvement with John Piper. Can you confirm to this House whether Will Ferguson had any discussions with John Piper about the campaign to smear Judi Harris? If you cannot confirm it, will you ask Mr Ferguson into your office this afternoon to ascertain whether he had any communication with Mr Piper relating to the smear campaign?

As a parliamentary assistant in your government, he holds a position of trust, a position of responsibility. You have an obligation to ascertain the involvement of Will Ferguson, who is the subject of this particular matter. Please, Premier, come clean.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I say with all respect to the member and I just say to him very directly, I am coming clean. I say to him, of course we all must do that. That's exactly what I'm doing.

I've made the decision -- I explained it in an answer to the member from Leeds -- that I will not launch inquiries of members with respect to anyone. I would say to the honourable member it's my judgement that it is not appropriate for me to do that at this point and I would say to him that I have to await the outcome of any inquiry.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Chiarelli: With all due respect, the Premier's answer is incredible. You have a member of your government, a parliamentary assistant, who is the subject matter of a promotion and a smear campaign, both of which took place at the same time: the smear campaign to his accuser, and you personally promoted him. The optics are very bad, Premier, in terms of some sort of orchestrated strategy.

But the issue is this. Will Ferguson is at the heart of this. He's a parliamentary assistant. The two crown attorneys in Owen Sound have denied responsibility for providing the criminal record. The person who had access is Will Ferguson's lawyer. Will you ask Mr Ferguson if his lawyer or anybody on his staff provided that record to Mr Piper?

It's critical and has nothing to do with the OPP investigation; it has to do with how you manage your government and how you manage your parliamentary assistants and your backbenchers. Please come clean, Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that it's precisely because of my respect for the independence of the police and for the need for them to make their inquiries and for them to deal with it directly that I've made the decision that I have.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Carleton.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question of the Premier as well. Mr Premier, you and I are elected to this Legislative Assembly. I'm a member of the Legislative Assembly. You are a member of the government. I am responsible to my constituents for certain matters as an MPP. You are responsible to the people of Ontario as an elected member of the government. Where does the time come for the responsibility to the people of Ontario for Mr Piper's action? Who is responsible to the people of Ontario for Mr Piper's action?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that I think I answered his question when it was asked in its previous form by the member for Parry Sound. Mr Piper did something which was in no way, shape or form condoned by me or by this government and there is now a police investigation into what took place.

I would say to the honourable member that I think the public of Ontario knows how strongly I feel about this matter. I think I've indicated very clearly and very publicly how strongly I feel about this matter. That is the basis upon which I am acting and that is the basis upon which I am reporting to the House and answering questions in the House with respect to what took place.

Mr Sterling: Unfortunately, it leads one to draw the conclusion, therefore, that as long as a minister of a government or a minister of any of the government ministries is not aware of what the civil service or the people who work for him might or might not do or might or might not have said, he is not responsible. Am I interpreting your vision of ministerial responsibility correctly?

Hon Mr Rae: My vision of the responsibility of the Premier is to answer the questions that are put to him in this House, to answer to the people of the province, to be accountable for decisions that are made, decisions that are not made and to respond when mistakes are made, as they have been. I think that's the nature of the parliamentary system, that's the nature of cabinet government and that's the nature of political life today.

I've made very clear that I don't find what took place acceptable; I find it unacceptable. It is something that we are determined to get to the bottom of and we're going to do that in a systematic, fair and reasonable way, in a way that reflects the interests of the province of Ontario, and if I may say so, in a way, I think, that would have been followed by previous governments in terms of dealing with a difficult situation which requires a comprehensive response, a response that is serious, that is diligent, that is interested in finding and getting to the truth and that is also prepared to recognize the nature of the process we are involved in.

Because of what was revealed on Friday, the first initial response in terms of looking at it, obviously, was for Mr Piper to go right away, and he resigned. The second one was for any possibility of there being any criminal element involved in terms of what took place, for that matter to be reviewed as soon as possible by the police. As I've said to his colleagues and will say to the member very directly, say to him as clearly as I possibly can, if there are further measures that need to be taken, of course they will be taken.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of the Environment and the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. The minister is aware that on Friday the IWA released a short list of candidate sites. The minister also knows that almost one third of the sites of the last 16 are within a few kilometres of each other, all on the North Pickering land assembly, the 20,000 acres of provincially owned land in the north end of my riding.

The people of Pickering have been relatively quiet since the release of the long list of sites in June. They knew it was inevitable that there would be sites in Pickering; there always are. Friday brought this to an abrupt end when the IWA drew back its bow and set its sights on the biggest target in the town of Pickering.

My question to the minister is this: In the vast acreage of undeveloped land throughout the entire greater Toronto area, how could it be that 5 out of the 16 sites fall within a few kilometres of each other and all happen to fall within the provincial land holdings expropriated by the provincial Tories and the federal Liberals? Is it a coincidence or is it because the IWA is practising the three Cs -- close, cheap and convenient?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I indeed know the depths of the feelings of the member and of his constituents and I want to assure him that the premise of his question that it is a coincidence and that Whitevale is close, cheap and convenient is incorrect.

As the member knows, it had always been the commitment of our party, in opposition and in government, that no new landfill site would be opened without an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment process is a planning process that, by a series of eliminations, arrives at a preferred site. The criteria that the Interim Waste Authority has been using have been fully discussed, much debated and therefore a fair and open process.

As a result of the application of those criteria, a short list of sites was determined. When those sites have been evaluated, hydrogeologically and for their other social and economic impacts, then a preferred site will be determined and an Environmental Assessment Board will determine whether or not that's an appropriate site for the waste that is generated within the region of Durham.

Mr Wiseman: Pickering is the host of just about every negative imaginable. They have had decades of dump sites with the Brock West, Brock North and Beare Road landfill sites. They have a nuclear power plant with its veritable sea of hydro lines. The minister may recall that just a few months ago this community had to deal with the reality of just what it meant to have a nuclear power plant near with the tritium spill that took place.

Pickering has a sewage treatment plant that takes the sewage not only from Durham but from York as well. They have had to live with the expropriation of 40,000 acres of land over the last 20 years, both by the federal and provincial governments. To this day, they live with the uncertainty of what this has left them with. Many of the homes have been in the families for generations. They have had an airport looming over their heads for years and years. One might ask what is left or, even worse, what harm could another dump do?

It has been suggested that Pickering is revisited time and time again because it is seen as a community that is so tarnished that a little more won't hurt.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place his supplementary, please. I ask the House to come to order and I would ask the members on the opposition side to allow the member, who has been recognized and has a right to ask a question, to ask it.

Mr Wiseman: Mr Speaker, it's obvious they don't want me to have this question because of their culpability in having the sites located there by their years and years of neglect.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Wiseman: Can the minister tell me if the environmental assessment takes into account social equity, that is, a community's track record of having to endure decades of negatives that have resulted in the degradation of the comfort and wellbeing of a community?

Hon Mrs Grier: The residents of Pickering are well served by having as their member an environmentalist who has fought harder than any previous member of that area on their behalf, and I want to say that very strongly in this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: I also want to say to the member that the environmental assessment process will indeed look at all aspects of potential landfill impacts on the environment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mrs Grier: The environmental assessment process will look at the economic, the social and the natural aspects of the situation, and an independent environmental assessment hearing board will make the final determination when it gets to the point of looking at the preferred site.

The IWA's site search has specifically addressed the question of social equity, and the public has been consulted over the last year for its views on this subject. But I must say to the member that there are very different views about social equity. People say, "Preserve agricultural land." Others say, "We don't want a landfill site adjacent to a built-up area." Those are precisely the kinds of debates and the kinds of arguments that the Environmental Assessment Act is designed to accommodate, to facilitate and to resolve, and I'm confident that that will happen in a fair and open manner.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. Motions? On a point of order, the member for Bruce.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I am totally unimpressed with your call for the end of question period, when you allowed almost seven minutes to elapse on the question clock and almost more than that when she finished her thing. Earlier on today you stood in your place --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: -- and you allowed two minutes to run off the clock while they barracked about the questions on the leader's part on the opposition benches.

You have given the Conservatives on two consecutive days a question after time has expired. Why no question today, Mr Speaker, when you know full well that the whole activity was designed to postpone another question today for us? Mr Speaker, I ask you to reconsider your ruling.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, he will know that indeed I keep a close eye on the clock. In fact, there is a weekly time sheet which appears on my desk, and it may be of interest to the members to know that, almost without exception, we have on a daily basis a 50-50 split in time between questions asked and responses given. I monitor that very closely in an effort to ensure that as many members as possible will have an opportunity to pose questions. It indeed could --

Mr Elston: You stood in your place and gave them two minutes off the clock just for barracking at us.

The Speaker: Whenever there is disorder, the Speaker has a responsibility to try to maintain order. The member will recall that I commented yesterday that indeed I was impressed with the restraint which was shown on both sides of the chamber both Monday and Tuesday. Such restraint was not quite as evident today and hence it was very difficult to maintain order. I cannot do this job alone. It requires the efforts of every member in this chamber to try to maintain order and decorum so that we can maximize the number of questions which are asked.

Indeed, there was

an act of generosity yesterday which may in fact not have been the most wise thing to do. I was attempting to establish some balance in terms of questions asked and answers given, and perhaps I was in error in doing that. It was done in an effort to try to assist the opportunity for opposition members to ask questions.

All I can do is request all members on both sides of the House to try to exercise some restraint so that it is not necessary for me to interrupt the proceedings. It's the last thing a Speaker wants to do, interrupt the proceedings, and I do it most reluctantly, but --

Mr Elston: We should have a running tab on how long you stand and do that very interruption.

The Speaker: Motions? Petitions?

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It has been sent in by the Our Lady of Perpetual Help school PTA, which is in St George-St David riding. I'm reading it on behalf of Ian Scott since he isn't here to put into the Legislature.

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two education systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto, and

whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in these areas, yet it has access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students, and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students, than our public school counterpart;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned, so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded, not only fully, but with equity and equality."

I am signing this petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Petitions? I wish people would take their seats so that I could see who wants to present a petition.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine the economic recovery in the region;

"Whereas it will cause a decline in the commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment plan is an unfair location tax;

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any changes to property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

I too affix my signature to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition signed by 86 individuals, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario, through David Winninger, MPP for the riding of London South, and Honourable Bob Rae, Premier of Ontario:

"That, in our opinion, no benefit to the people of the province of Ontario can be realized by broadening the scope of legalized gambling to include casinos, electronic gambling devices or anything else beyond the present legal options."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): A petition to the Legislature of Ontario to "reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I've affixed my signature.

GAMBLING

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I support this petition and have signed it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly in regard to the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act. I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for the family life, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship to many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my signature to the petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to that as well.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RULING

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition signed by 85 constituents from the Catholic Women's League of Canada, Hamilton diocese:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Ontario Human Rights Commission in its September 1 ruling extended full family and bereavement benefits to same-sex arrangements; and

"Whereas this is believed by Catholic women as detrimental to the family and society,

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Honourable Howard Hampton, Attorney General of the province of Ontario, to appeal this ruling of the Human Rights Commission."

I affix my signature.

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have two petitions addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas post-polio is a new phenomenon to attack survivors of polio;

"Whereas the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association has been formed to help survivors of polio;

"Whereas most family practitioners do not have the specialized knowledge to treat post-polio symptoms effectively,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the rehabilitation centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome."

I have affixed my signature.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine economic recovery in the region;

"Whereas it will cause a decline in commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment plan is an unfair location tax,

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any changes to the property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

This is signed by many of my constituents and I too affix my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 33 residents of the county of Middlesex who petition the Legislative Assembly to set aside the report of the arbitrator, Mr John Brant, because his report does not reflect the expressed wishes of the people in Middlesex in their majority, who believe this decision is not in the best interests of the people in the London and Middlesex area. It awards too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London, will jeopardize agricultural land and the viability of the county and our rural way of life and in no way reflects the possibility, inasmuch as alternate proposals exist.

I have signed my name to this petition.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition on the subject of market value assessment.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of the city of Toronto, strongly urge that Metropolitan Toronto council skip its market value assessment proposal. Instead, it should be referred to the Fair Tax Commission in order to create a property tax system that is fair and equitable."

I have signed my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a petition on behalf of St Clement's school in my riding, Etobicoke West.

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education and, in keeping with this, the province...supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto, and

whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet has access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pool of corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equality and equity."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have yet another petition to the members of provincial Parliament on the question of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

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

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affixed my signature to the petition.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have another petition. This one is signed by some residents in my riding as well as throughout other parts of Metro.

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

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly.

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

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine the economic recovery in the region;

"Whereas it will cause a decline in commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment plan is an unfair location tax,

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any changes to property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

This is signed by many of my constituents and I too affix my signature to it.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with regard to saving fish and wildlife and it reads as follows:

"We feel Bud Wildman of the MNR is acting irresponsibly and unable to handle the job as minister. He should resign.

"The killing of fish and wildlife by native people out of season and for commercial reasons should be stopped."

It's signed by approximately 800 people from the London area and I have signed my name to the petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mrs MacKinnon from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr35,

An Act to revive P.J. Construction Limited

Bill Pr63,

An Act to revive Modern Optical Ltd.

Bill Pr68,

An Act to revive Rainbow Halfway House

Bill Pr73,

An Act respecting the City of York.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr68,

An Act to revive Rainbow Halfway House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIMITATIONS ACT (GENERAL), 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA PRESCRIPTION (DE NATURE GÉNÉRALE)

On motion by Mr Hampton, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 99,

An Act to revise the Limitations Act / Loi révisant la

Loi sur la prescription des actions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Minister, do you wish to make any brief remarks?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Yes, briefly. As I mentioned in my statement earlier today, the bill will implement much-needed and long-awaited reform of the law relating to limitations of actions. While it will benefit everyone involved in civil litigation in our courts, it is of particular significance to victims of sexual and other abuses. In many cases, there will be no limitation period whatsoever.

The bill reflects a broad public consensus that has emerged from active consultation. I look forward to the same consensus in support of the bill in this assembly.

REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES

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

Bill 100,

An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 / Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister, do you have any brief comments?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): Yes. I'm pleased to seek leave to introduce the bill today. This amendment bill is addressed at ending sexual abuse by health professionals directed towards patients. It's the result of work that has been done over the last two years, initiated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, its establishment of a task force, the task force report and its recommendations responded to by the college.

After a period of consultation, we are pleased to bring forward the amendments that will apply to all regulated health professionals. As I indicated in my remarks today, following second reading we will be moving to committee in which we hope there can be further consultation with affected parties.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REFERRAL OF BILL 94

Mr Philip, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved government notice of motion number 22:

That notwithstanding any standing order, the subject matter of Bill 94,

An Act to amend certain Acts to implement the interim reassessment plan of Metropolitan Toronto on a property class by property class basis and to permit all municipalities to provide for the pass through to tenants of tax decreases resulting from reassessment and to make incidental amendments related to financing in The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be referred to the standing committee on social justice for the purpose of conducting public hearings pending the referral of the bill to the committee after second reading and that the standing committee on social development be authorized to meet from 3:30 pm until 10 pm on November 30, 1992.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): On a point of order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Only, Mr Speaker, that on the first reading, the reading does not comply with the actual notice that has appeared. The committee was unfortunately named "social justice," but I presume he required it to be "social development."

The Deputy Speaker: Could you make the correction?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and Acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Sorry, I thought I said social development. If I read incorrectly, I correct the record.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Philip has moved, on behalf of Mr Cooke, government notice of motion number 22. Mr Philip.

Hon Mr Philip: This implements an agreement reached by the three House leaders on the matter that I've just read.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Indeed, this allows the committee to begin taking briefings from the ministry and other people prior to second reading being obtained. We certainly want to ensure that the committee is able to start its public work as early as possible, and consent to this being processed today.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

It's very open-ended. It could give you the impression that we're only going to get one day of hearings on market value reassessment. It is absolutely critical that all of the people who are affected by market value should have their time to be heard, because all of the submissions that were made to Metropolitan Toronto and to the municipalities were on the basis of a different plan, not the plan that was cooked up on the fly in the last two hours of debate at Metro.

I want to point out that all of the protestations of the government to suggest that, really, this isn't MVA are absolute baloney. Let me say why it's baloney. This is just a sublethal dose of MVA, but it is MVA no matter how you twist and turn it.

If you consider that the class which is now known as the "excluded" class -- previously it was known as the "other" class -- is getting full MVA, to the extent that they are paying $80 million more under this MVA plan, and if you look at what the residential reductions are overall in Metro, $60 million, if it wasn't for the excluded class paying considerably more under full MVA, then indeed the residential class everywhere in Metro would get no reduction. So the suggestions that the Minister of Municipal Affairs makes to try to get his caucus in line on this issue are absolutely preposterous. This is full MVA.

The newspaper reports which preceded this bill coming to the House suggested that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was going to make sure that caps were in place for the residential people; he wasn't happy with the idea or the fact that caps would be removed at point of sale. Yet this minister, who's prepared to interfere in all kinds of other issues, is so gutless that all he wimpily says in his bill is that Metro Toronto is going to have to pass a bylaw to make sure that point-of-sale clicks in for these people. That is no protection whatsoever.

This is the same government that in fact was prepared to interfere in the Toronto Islands, much against the wishes of Metropolitan Toronto. It's an interventionist government, and yet on this particular issue it's trying to have it both ways. You can't have it both ways. You are giving Metro the loaded gun and saying, "You take the responsibility." The responsibility is equally split between this government and Metropolitan Toronto. We're going to see massive bankruptcies under this plan. There's full market value assessment for all the excluded categories, which covers the railway lands, the municipal parking lots, the TTC and Hydro lands.

The government, in one of its policy documents which emanates from the policy convention of the NDP in 1984 and is binding on this party and has never been rescinded, states, "The NDP opposes any further introduction of market value assessment." It is not apparent by the government's actions that it opposes it. Many of the members in this House campaigned in the last election as being against market value reassessment. Not only did they campaign as being against market value reassessment, but they said they would fight market value reassessment. Many of those people are now in the cabinet.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine, the member for Riverdale, the member for Dovercourt and the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, among others, all fought against MVA and said they would fight it. Some fight.

This is as laughable as that document you put out to the people during the last election called Agenda for People. It was the most dishonest document the people of Ontario have ever read, because there wasn't a shred of truth in it. I am not going to allow the members of this government to get away with the fact that this is not MVA. It is MVA. Otherwise, why would the excluded class not be paying reduced amounts? They are paying the full MVA. I see one of the members at the back there nodding her head. When a house is sold, it's going to full MVA. If that isn't full MVA, I don't know what is.

You obviously haven't read the bill and you don't understand what you're talking about. But that is typical for this government.

This is MVA. It's poisonous. It's going to kill business after business in this community. Small businesses are the ones that are disproportionately being hit by this bill. Small businesses are the people who drive the jobs of this province. It is well known that in Canada small business creates more jobs than large corporations. In the past the NDP has always said that it was against these big multinationals. Well, it's the big multinationals that are gaining out of this scheme and the small people who are suffering.

We have examples in Yorkdale, in the shopping plaza, where the largest anchor tenants are going to get enormous reductions in their taxes under this plan and the small people, who are already paying more rent than the anchor tenants, are going to be paying more taxes. What a shameful state of affairs we've got to.

We have a government that campaigned on something and is absolutely turning its back and playing Pontius Pilate on this. I am disgusted. I had always known that I did not like socialism, but I at least thought there would be some honesty. There is no honesty in this government. It's a preposterous idea that you would try to get away with the fact of telling the public this isn't MVA -- it is MVA -- and try to tell the public that you're protecting it because you want a bylaw passed by Metro to ensure that point-of-sale is not involved. All it says is that you pass that bylaw and then, once you've passed it, Metro can impose point-of-sale, full MVA.

Well, Metro, let me tell you, has already voted on three occasions to have MVA and has already passed the resolution that there should be point of sale. Back in 1988 and again in 1989, they voted that, yes, they would have point of sale for residences. Again in 1992, they voted for this.

So do not have the effrontery to suggest to the people who are watching this debate that you are protecting them. You are not protecting them at all. You are handing a loaded gun to Metropolitan Toronto and, as sure as can be, it will pull the trigger. If you think they won't, you are bigger fools than I took you to be.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I won't accept that. I find it very insulting, personally. I find it insulting, honestly. So please, I want you to retract that last word that you said.

Mr Turnbull: Are you suggesting that I retract the word "fools," Mr Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: Please, don't play around.

Mr Turnbull: Is that what you're asking me to do?

The Deputy Speaker: I am asking you to retract that word.

Mr Turnbull: I am asking you, is that what you're asking?

The Deputy Speaker: I am asking you to retract the word "fool."

Mr Turnbull: I will say "incompetent" --

The Deputy Speaker: No. I want you to --

Mr Turnbull: I will replace the word, Mr Speaker, with "incompetent."

The Deputy Speaker: No, please take your chair. I have asked you to withdraw that word. I find it insulting, and please don't make any further comments.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: I've asked you.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I am speaking to you about, I'm getting guidance from the Chair --

The Deputy Speaker: The Speaker is given certain power to act. Please don't let me use it.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I think that the word "fool" is perfectly parliamentary.

The Deputy Speaker: I will not tolerate that word. I'm asking you to withdraw, once.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw the word "fool" and replace it with the word "incompetent."

The Deputy Speaker: That is all that I want to hear.

Further debate.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Speaker, just briefly, the member for York Mills was discussing the matter of market value assessment and I don't think was able to finish his remarks.

I would only add that certain classes of property have been singled out for full market value tax increases without protective caps. We have heard a lot about protective caps and this minister has indicated that there will not be full market value assessment instituted, but when we're looking at the details of this bill we will find that indeed there will be some classes of property which will not be protected by caps.

I'll give you one example. In 1992, this year, the Parking Authority of Toronto paid $6.7 million in local taxes. Under the Metro scheme, the parking authority would pay $19.4 million, an increase of $12.7 million. We all know the parking authority in Toronto is unable to shoulder this kind of a new tax burden and consequently, it's easy to understand, will not be able to maintain its operation. Consequently, 300 people will lose their jobs. Obviously, this cannot be the intention of this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's indeed a pleasure for me to be able to rise a