Journal des débats 1993-déc-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

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

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

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

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

WORLD AIDS DAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initiatives such as the Red Ribbon Campaign, which has been going on this week, aim to enlighten the public's attitude and understanding of AIDS and HIV. Since last Friday, hundreds of volunteers have been selling red ribbons to raise funds for AIDS research and for supportive housing for people living with AIDS and HIV. Although for the most part I encountered generosity and positive responses when I sold ribbons last week, the hostile response of one individual reminded me of the urgent need for campaigns such as this one.

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

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

1340

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

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

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

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

HOSPICE ORILLIA

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

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

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

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

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

ST MARY'S CATHEDRAL

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Next Wednesday, St Mary's Cathedral in Kingston will celebrate a new chapter in its 150-year history. Five years ago, this local landmark was falling down. Its limestone walls were cracking and chunks of stone were falling from its tower. But next Wednesday, the church congregation will hold a ceremony to mark the cathedral's successful restoration.

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

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

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

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

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

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

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

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

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

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

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

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

EASTERN ONTARIO ISSUES SUMMIT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I direct this statement to the Minister of Natural Resources. The ministry has introduced resource policies which are so extreme and so detrimental to the resource economy of eastern Ontario that the people of the Ottawa Valley have organized a summit to find solutions to the problems created by this ministry. They have organized this summit because they believe that the Ministry of Natural Resources has gone through the motions of public consultation while plowing ahead with its own anti-development agenda. Instead of listening to the hundreds of people who opposed the Madawaska highlands, the Ministry of Natural Resources is conducting smoke-and-mirrors consultations while proceeding as it had originally planned.

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

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

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

DON VALLEY BRICKWORKS

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

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

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

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

1350

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

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

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

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

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): This is by way of some information on this question. As members will know, the Minister of Finance is in Halifax working with the ministers from across the nation around some of the very serious fiscal questions that are faced across this country. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is at a conference with agriculture and food processing sector participants, assisting, at their request, in coordination of some policy development. We also have the unfortunate circumstance today of having several of my colleagues who, having perhaps spent too much time in the same room over the last couple of weeks, find themselves ill with a bug that has affected many over the last several weeks.

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

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

It is, however, now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

1400

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

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

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: The member for Downsview.

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

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

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

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

INVESTIGATION AT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. It's related to an article in the Toronto Sun today, a story by Christie Blatchford related to an Ontario jail guard at the Guelph Correctional Centre parading a white inmate dressed in a Ku Klux Klan outfit through two cell blocks full of black inmates. I wonder if the minister would describe to the House today if indeed this actually occurred and what he has done in response to this incident.

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

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

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

Hon Mr Christopherson: First of all, let me be very clear that in confirming, using the words of the honourable member, I'm acknowledging that I am aware of an issue and I'm aware of the issue that's raised in the media today and I am not confirming or denying any of the circumstances or specifics that may or may not be included in the article. What I'm saying is that as a result of what is talked about in that article -- and I understand that the matter may go back quite a number of years -- there was an investigation by the independent investigations unit and they did conclude their investigation and submit a report.

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

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

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

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

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

1410

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

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

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

KARLA HOMOLKA

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

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

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: In the first place, I do not lay charges, as the member is well aware. That is not part of my function. Secondly, as I have said on numerous occasions, this is a very difficult issue. There are two different matters that need to be taken into account. One is a breach of the publication ban that would break section 127 of the Criminal Code, and that is a police matter and the police need to make that determination. The other is the determination of whether or not contempt of court has occurred, and in that instance the Attorney General's ministry takes that action. It is important for us to make those distinctions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SALE OF AIRCRAFT

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

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

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

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

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

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

1420

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT

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

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

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

My question to you is very simple: Was there nobody qualified in the province of Ontario, with our unemployment situation as high as it is, to take over this position? The second part is, how much are the taxpayers of this province going to be paying to move this gentleman from Great Britain to Ontario to work with Ontario communities? Very clearly, the questions are, was there nobody from Ontario and how much is it going to cost the taxpayers of this province?

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

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

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

1430

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

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

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

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

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SERVICES FOR THE HEARING-IMPAIRED

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

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

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

1440

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

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

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

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We understand the victims have been told --

The Speaker: Would the member please place a supplementary.

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

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

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

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1450

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

TAXATION

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

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

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

There are some 88 signatures on these petitions.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

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

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

TAXATION

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

"To the Legislative Assembly:

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

My friend Joe will take this down to the table.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAXATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASINO GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

TAXATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1500

TAX EXEMPTION

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

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Leo Jordan's private Bill 46, An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions."

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

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Bradley: What about the provincial government land?

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

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

It reads:

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

GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

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

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

Mr Perruzza: It's downright rude.

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

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

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

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

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ALL-WOOD LAND CLEARING LTD ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr67, An Act to revive All-Wood Land Clearing Ltd.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 20:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order in relation to Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women, the standing committee on administration of justice shall complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by Monday, December 6, 1993. All proposed amendments must be filed with the clerk of the committee prior to 12 noon on the abovenoted day. At 5 pm on that same day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further amendment or debate, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1520

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two weeks later, after having two weeks to finalize what it was going to do, the government gives us a set of amendments on the Saturday before the Monday the committee is to resume. But that's not all. It decides to give us another 10 or 15 amendments. The member for Fort York I'm sure will remember this. At 2:30 of the day the committee is to sit, they give us another 10 or 15 amendments. Frankly, they were delivered outside of what the rules say they should be delivered in. They're supposed to be delivered two hours before the beginning and they weren't. It was less than an hour. We asked the parliamentary assistant, we asked the minister, and they could give no reason, because it was clear there was no reason, other than their own incompetence, for the failure to deliver those amendments on time.

Then we finally reach a point where the government is ready, we think, and we start to discuss the bill in committee. Since that time, we've gone from the preamble to section 50 in the bill. We have left four sections, two of which are the name of the bill and the proclamation date.

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

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

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

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

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

1530

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Mr Cooke: You probably wrote time --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Sutherland: Oh.

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

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

Mr Sutherland: It could have been different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1540

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

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

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

Laughter.

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

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

There's a way to do this bill in a more efficient way. The government wasn't prepared to listen. It prefers to create an unnecessary and incredible burden, and the worst part is that some of these amendments -- I think it's important just to show you now. This is the batch of amendments. There are some 200 amendments in here, and to say that five or six days of clause-by-clause is inappropriate is just not on. This is a complicated bill. The government's amendments add up to 150 or 160 amendments. That's the kind of thing you need time to debate.

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

I'd like, while I have the opportunity, to talk about some of the issues that unfortunately, because of the government's incompetence in this, we were unable to discuss, that I would have liked to have discussed. I'm wearing this red ribbon because it's World AIDS Day, as you know. Because of the efforts it's pouring into this, it was unable to assist the Homewood co-op in my riding, which is dedicating 25% of its units to people living with HIV and AIDS. The government wouldn't even consider that application, and this is within days of World AIDS Day. It puts out a document extolling the virtues of its own policies and yet, when it comes down to the crunch, it won't deliver. I think the same is going to be able to be said about this employment equity bill.

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

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

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

The other issues: There's a wonderful opportunity to create a parkland environment in the Don Valley area. There's the Rosedale ravine, which I think needs the protection of all levels of government to ensure that park, that green space in the heart of downtown Toronto, is preserved. I think of the brickworks on the Don Valley. I know the member for York East was touring that area with the Minister of Natural Resources, and I hope the government will do something about creating a park, because the Don River really does need to be brought back. As Mark Wilson from the Bring Back the Don task force says, it needs to be brought back because it could be a thriving part of the downtown community if we can rejuvenate that area. The Ataratiri lands, the lower Don lands: Those need to be rejuvenated too. I hope the government will respond to the call to make the Don River and the Don River Valley part of a rejuvenated downtown core.

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your help.

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

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

1550

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oakville South.

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

Interjection.

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

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

I want to read what it says and I want you to see how it's written up. It says: "As a positive measure initiative under the Ontario public service employment equity program and consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code, this competition is limited" -- that's what it says -- "to the following" categories.

When you say anything is limited, that means there is a quota in place. It goes on, and I'll explain it here. What they're doing basically is reverse discrimination. You're saying certain categories of people need not apply.

It goes on to talk about some of the categories. It defines aboriginal people, it defines francophones, people with disabilities, racial minorities and then women; it just says "women."

In his most famous speech, Rev Martin Luther King said that one day he had a dream that people would be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. What this bill does, Bill 79, is judge people based on the colour of their skin. I agree with Dr Martin Luther King when he says the big criterion should be the content of the character, not the colour of the skin of the person.

I believe people should be judged solely on ability and experience. Their colour, religion, race or gender should not have anything to do with it, and that's what they're doing.

Mr Perruzza: That's shameful. That's shameful.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview, order. The member for Sault Ste Marie, order, please.

Mr Perruzza: Women, 52%.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Wake up, Gary.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview, this is the third time. The member for Sault Ste Marie, order, please.

Mr Martin: Look reality in the face.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, the member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): He just points to this side. There are other people over here --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Yorkview, order, please. The member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: I agree with Dr Martin Luther King, who says we should judge people on character. This bill does not. It discriminates against people, and I believe it's wrong; I believe it's unfair.

I had a hundred calls from people the day after this came in. I had people come into my office: people who came in from racial minorities, women coming in concerned about their children. They said: "This isn't right and this isn't fair. What can we do to stop it?"

I started a petition to kill Bill 79, and I've had more people call me on this than any other piece of legislation. This ad I think really is going to be what is going to happen. We are going to discriminate against people based on characteristics which are defined by some bureaucrat sitting in some office somewhere: what the aboriginal people are, francophones, people with disabilities and racial minorities. This ad says, and I'll read it again to the members who didn't hear, "This competition is limited...."

I say that in the province of Ontario, everybody should have an opportunity for any job. It should not be limited based on anything, whether it's your sex, whether it's gender, whether it's your colour, by any criteria, whether it's religion. Anybody anywhere should apply for any job in this province if they have the qualities.

What this will do is say: "No, you can't compete. You can't compete."

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Take your seat. Take your seat, please. The member for Oakville South, please take your seat.

Mr Mammoliti: How do we achieve that?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Yorkview, order, please.

Mr Mammoliti: Don't just criticize; tell us how you are going to do it.

The Deputy Speaker: No interjection, please. If you are not listening, I will ask you to leave.

Mr Carr: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think in a lot of ways we have come a long way. I look now at the University of Guelph. They tell me that 75% of the people now applying for vets are women. Under this plan, I guess what we do is say: "That's too high. There are too many women applying. We're going to have to lower that quota to 52% now."

Interjection.

Mr Carr: The member says, "Come on." You've got quotas in place, and 75% of the best-qualified people in this province at the University of Guelph taking vet are women. So now what do we do? They're over the quota. They're over the 52%. Do we reverse that and take it back now? Because that, my friends, is what happens when you start with quotas.

In the province of Ontario, approximately 65% of new teachers are women. Do we now say that's too high and we go back? When you start with quotas, what happens when we've got our fill of quotas of women? What happens if a black woman happens to be the most qualified for the job, but the category we need doesn't happen to be that?

So what we do is we set quotas. Basically, what this government is saying is that these people can't compete on their own. I say they can. I say there's no difference between men, women, people of any race: You should be qualified for a job. You should not set quotas that reverse-discriminate against any one class of people in this province. I never thought I'd see the day in the province of Ontario that we would have a government that would introduce legislation that would say to some people, "You can't compete."

Many of us have children. I've got three, two girls and a boy. Basically, what this will say to my girls is: "You couldn't compete on your own. We need to set quotas for you. You're not good enough." That's what it says to them. It also says to my son: "You can't apply for a job. Why? For no other reason than you are a white male." That's the only criterion why he couldn't apply for this job. That's why he couldn't apply for this job, no other criteria. He's being penalized because in the past there probably has been discrimination. He, at 11 years old, is being penalized for no other reason than his sex and his race. That is wrong, it is reverse discrimination, and in the province of Ontario it shouldn't be happening.

This government tries to pass it off as voluntary. They say everything's going to be voluntary. They talk about goals and timetables. We see what the true intention is in this job ad. If this bill goes through, that's what you're going to see in the province of Ontario: ads coming in like this, basically saying, "Only this group can apply."

What happens when we've got quotas? Are we going to then say: "Sorry, the quotas are filled. We've got four categories, but the quotas are filled in that, so you can't compete"? The problem is that some of the groups in here, whether it be women, are going to be withheld from applying for jobs too, because when you set quotas and when you line people up and you say, "We've got to have a certain amount of this group," what it does is it's a recipe for discrimination. It's a recipe for tokenism. It's also a recipe for resentment. It's going to cause a lot of racial division. More importantly, it's fundamental unfairness that somebody is being denied any job in the province of Ontario based on a quota system, and anything that sets that up is discrimination.

The member asked about how we should deal with it. I believe Ontario has some of the toughest laws dealing with discrimination in hiring practices. If they aren't working, and this government says they are not, then toughen them up. The Attorney General is here. If those laws against discrimination in hiring practices aren't working, then toughen them up. Don't turn around and set quotas and say to these people, "Those are the only people who can be hired for these jobs."

1600

But the toughest anti-discrimination laws and indeed even the toughest quota systems will still not produce people in certain jobs. What you need to do, to the member for Yorkview, is work through the education system. For example, if we need more women as engineers, we should do whatever we can --

The Deputy Speaker: Please address the Chair.

Mr Carr: Yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Through you to the member, who I know is listening, what we should do is, through the education system, if there are some things that are creating problems for certain groups, then remove them. You're not going to get more women, for example, studying engineering by setting quotas and hiring a certain amount of people from that group. How you do it is through the education system.

I think the University of Guelph example is typical. If through the education system you allow them the same opportunities, the people from these groups will go just as far as anybody else. In the past that may not have been the case, but all you are doing is breeding resentment out there in the province of Ontario. You're doing it with everybody.

You're saying to the people who are out there and the people from these categories, "You're not good enough to compete on your own." I think they are. I think they can get ahead. They don't need to have quotas, and they don't need to have a situation like this where jobs are being limited by saying these are the only people who can apply.

I read in the Toronto Sun about the cargo-handling company which basically says the qualifications you need, and then it goes on to say the first qualification demanded: "Employment equity targeting females and aboriginal people." So it's already happening in the private sector; we're saying that the only people who can apply are from certain categories. In this ad they've only listed two of the categories, women and aboriginals. What happens to the other two groups? They are going to be discriminated against in this very ad, and that's what happens when you set up a quota system, because there is always somebody lower down the ladder.

Through the education system I believe some of the wrongs can be righted. Rather than setting hiring quotas, I think it should be done through the education system. Anybody, regardless of their gender, regardless of race, regardless of their religion, should be able to go as far as his or her talent takes them. This bill doesn't do this. This bill sets quotas.

Across the province, some of the concerns have been heard. It will now give preferential treatment to some group of Canadians based on no other reason than that the group has been discriminated against in the past. Probably some of them do have a legitimate case. So now we turn around and say, "To do that, we're now going to reverse-discriminate against another group of individuals and we're going to set quotas." That is not fair.

Many Ontarians want a level playing field. That's all they're asking for, a level playing field, not quotas that are going to discriminate against any people in this province. When we spent some time out on the small business task force talking to small businesses, this obviously came up in some quarters. Most people out there don't realize just what an onerous piece of legislation this is.

The ironic thing is that some of the small businesses out there are saying: "With all the regulations and the restrictions, the best thing we can do for some of these groups" -- and I'll list them again: the aboriginal people, the francophones, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women -- "is give them a job. We in the small business sector would love to hire more people." But it's the government regulations and taxation and overburdening that's been done by governments at all levels and, quite frankly, of all political stripes that are strangling small businesses so that they're going out of business and hurting the very people who need the jobs in the province of Ontario.

This Premier stood up before the Legislature came back and said, "We're going to make jobs a priority." There hasn't been one bill dealing with jobs or that is going to create any jobs in this Legislature since we've come back. We do now have debate on a bill like this that is going to say to businesses, "This is who you can hire; this is the category of people you can hire." That is wrong.

When I went and spoke to some of the small businesses out there, they were saying: "We're not going to comply with this, because we are already doing it. We want to hire the best people." In today's competitive environment, when the next day you don't even know if you're going to be around, they want the best people. They are not going to be told by any government, "You've got to line people up, count the people by categories and then hire people by categories."

I said to some of them, "Do you realize this bill gives fairly strong powers and sets up a commission to take a look at it, and if somebody claims there's a problem, you're going to have bureaucrats sweeping down?"

What they said is, "That's terrific. We now have the Ontario Human Rights Commission that's backed up well over a year; we have the Ontario Municipal Board that's backed up over 18 months; we've got a rent review board that's backed up with over 6,000 cases backlogged, and what does this government do to create more jobs? Sets up another commission that's going to be out there regulating businesses."

For the Premier to stand up and say he's creating jobs and then introduce legislation like this is, quite frankly, disgusting, because the Premier of this province should be creating jobs, not telling people who can be hired, who can't be fired, based on quotas and based on discriminating against any people in this province.

We're going to have some bureaucrat with a clipboard going along and counting people and saying: "You should have a certain percentage of this group. Line your people up and we'll come out and count them and see if you've got the right number, and if you don't, we're going to fine you heavily." I cannot believe in this day and age, when people in the province of Ontario are looking for jobs and economic prosperity, these people have done more to destroy this province than any other government since coming in.

They talk about the jobs that are going to be created. I say to the members opposite, when you came into government, the unemployment rate was 6%. It has almost doubled now. When you came into this Legislature, in your first throne speech, you said you were going to deal with the economy, and all you have done is destroy this economy. Economically, politically and socially, this government has destroyed more jobs in the province of Ontario than any other government, Liberal or Conservative, in the history of this country.

Mr Mills: You should be shot.

Mr Carr: When I went out on a small business task force, I don't think you realize the anger that is out there towards this government. I don't think you realize the anger that is out there. They don't trust any party. They don't trust the Liberals or the Conservatives, but the anger that is out there for you people is unprecedented.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think there is give and take in the heckling, but when a member starts suggesting another member should be shot, I think they've crossed the line.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): "Shocked."

Mr Stockwell: I heard him very clearly. I would ask the member to withdraw.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oakville South, please continue. I haven't heard it.

Mr Stockwell: I ask you to ask the member to withdraw. I heard it very clearly.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: We'll try to keep it a little calmer. I'm sure if the member did say it, he didn't mean it. I know he's actually one of the people who's out on the committee. I've spent some time in knowing him and maybe sometimes he gets carried away. But I'm sure he didn't mean it if in fact he said it.

But the anger that is out there towards you and this government is unprecedented. They see you destroying it. Day after day I get people saying, "How much longer are we out there before we can have an election?" I say to them, the election won't come too soon for most of the people of this province.

What this bill is going to do is basically set a quota system in place that's going to discriminate against certain people, it's going to be a recipe for discrimination, for tokenism, resentment, and more than anything else, I think, it is probably the most unfair piece of legislation that has ever come onto this floor of the Legislature.

The ironic thing is all these do-gooders in the NDP sitting around with all their philosophy, they were going to help people. More people are unemployed now than when you came into power; 80% of the jobs that have been lost in this country have been in the province of Ontario. You ran up the deficit so that the kids of this province have an accumulated deficit of about $7,200, and the fact of the matter is you're jobs and nothing in this bill will create jobs for the people in those categories. The people in those categories want jobs; they do not want a bill that's going to say to them, "You can't compete so we're going to have to give you a hand up."

I've talked about some of the issues here today and I want to refer to the situation that happens in cabinet as a bit of an example.

My friends from Beaches-Woodbine and from Scarborough West who are in cabinet are probably two of the best cabinet ministers. I say that because, quite frankly, they're the good of a bad lot so they shouldn't take too much credit with it, because as my friend from Etobicoke West says, "Being the best cabinet minister is sort of like being the best hockey player in Somalia." It really doesn't take too much.

1610

But those two members, who are very good members, are in there for their talent, and I will use that example. The member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Scarborough West aren't in there because of any quota. They would be the first ones to resent the fact that they got put in based on a quota. In the province of Ontario today, we now have cabinet ministers -- and, as a matter of fact, the member for Beaches-Woodbine will probably be the next leader of that party -- who don't need a hand up in terms of getting a quota and saying, "We've got to have x amount of cabinet ministers in there."

There are some good women in cabinet, those two being some. There are also some bad ones, and I will point out some bad ones, just to be fair: the member for Ottawa Centre, who I think is probably the worst Housing minister and doing more to destroy housing and run up the deficit with her crazy non-profit housing. So there are good cabinet ministers, and I use the example of women, and there are poor ones, as example the member for Ottawa Centre, who has been quite frankly a bad Minister of Housing.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do believe that one member should address what we're talking about, and I believe he's wandering.

Mr Stockwell: Holy smokes. You've got to be nice. You were going to shoot them a few minutes ago.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Carr: What I was --

The Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, please. If you were to address the Chair and look at the Chair, you wouldn't have as much reaction from the opposition. Just look at the Chair. Address the Chair. It will be simpler.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will do that. As a new member, I sometimes forget who we are addressing.

My point is that you've got within cabinet, I think, a lot of people who would resent anybody who said to the member for Beaches-Woodbine or Scarborough West, "The only reason you're in there is because we needed a quota," I say to one of the other reasonably good cabinet ministers, from London Centre, who I think is doing a good job. She would resent it, I think, if she thought she was in there based on a quota.

For my friend who didn't get the drift, what I'm saying is you do not need to set quotas to have people in good positions. Good people will rise to the top regardless of whatever their religion, their race, their gender, and we do not need to set quotas in the province of Ontario and tell businesses who they can and cannot hire.

The point that I'm making with this is --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): We set quotas for enumerators in our party and it works.

Mr Stockwell: You're a living example it doesn't work.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre. The member for Etobicoke West. The member for Oakville South has the floor. If you want to rebut, you'll have a chance to do so after he is through. So I would ask you to please refrain from interjecting.

Mr Perruzza: He's inciting us.

The Deputy Speaker: Please, the member for Downsview, you should know better. The member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: The point I'm making is that when you set up quotas like this, you could inadvertently hurt a lot of people, and if you don't use a merit system, supposing we have a better-qualified black woman, for example, who doesn't get a job because we just don't happen to need the numbers in that particular category and somebody else gets the job. When you go down the slippery slope of setting up quotas, what happens is you could penalize the very people you're trying to help.

The fact of the matter, Mr Speaker, is the people are angry. I told you earlier that I had over 100 calls that day. That's why I set out and put a petition in place which says, and I'll read what the people of the province are saying:

"This government should not interfere in business; and

"Whereas any person applying for a job should be judged solely on his or her ability and experience; and

"Whereas their colour, religion, race, gender or other such characteristics should not enter the equation; and

"Whereas Bill 79 will establish a quota system by hiring by race, colour, sex or physical characteristics; and

"Whereas employers should be allowed to hire and required to judge each person as a person and hire them on merit," they call for the withdrawal of Bill 79.

Anybody who is interested in signing that petition over the province of Ontario would be interested in calling my office in Oakville at 842-5592. Please call us and we will attempt to --

Interjection.

Mr Carr: Yes, that's for sure, the member for St Catharines, because I believe the people of this province are angry. The people who came in and are signing this petition are the people from the very category. I've had women coming in and saying, "I have children, both male and female, and I don't want to have any of my kids discriminated against."

I believe, like Dr Martin Luther King, that we should judge people not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. In that famous speech that he made over 20 years ago, what he was saying was that people should not be looking at any particular person based on any characteristic other than their character, and I agree with him. It's a sad day that after all this time, we have now got to a situation where we're reversing our discrimination against any people.

If you thought I was controversial, the member for Etobicoke West wants to speak, as does the member for Wellington, so I will cut down my time a little bit. To sum up what I've been saying, this is a bad piece of legislation.

I will, for the people out there watching, let you know. Most of this has been set up through regulations. I hope that the next government that takes over -- because I don't think there's anybody in his right mind who believes this government will win the next election -- that whatever government takes over, whether it be Liberal or Conservative in the province of Ontario, will have the courage to get rid of a piece of legislation that discriminates and is unfair like this piece of legislation.

If I were to sum it up, this particular piece of legislation is a recipe for discrimination, for tokenism, for resentment, for racial division and fundamental unfairness. It's wrong. I'm going to vote against it, and I'm going to continue in this Legislature to work to uphold what Dr Martin Luther King said, that we judge people by their character, not by any characteristics.

Hopefully, as we go on, his memory will live on and the legislators in this province will indeed judge people, not on a quota system but will be fair and judge people based on their character and their merit. That day is when we'll have fairness in the province of Ontario.

Ms Akande: I rise today in the House to support the motion. We have in fact consulted with the people of Ontario. We have held many, many sessions throughout Ontario to hear what people wanted, to hear about their concerns. It's characteristic of our way of consulting that we spoke to all the people.

We spoke to people who were privileged enough to enjoy the comforts of their life. Without question, generally speaking they were white male.

We spoke to women who, though very qualified, many of them very experienced, having all kinds of educational degrees, were not able to achieve the level in their profession or their occupation that they aspired to and that they desired because there was a ceiling there, sometimes not too invisible.

We spoke to visible minorities, because we know that Canada has many people who are visible minorities, who live here and who were born here, as I was, and who have educated themselves and prepared themselves to take their place and to contribute to this province and to Canada. We spoke to them too.

We spoke to people who have disabilities, who are bright -- in fact, we should be focusing on their abilities rather than their disabilities -- people who could contribute things to this province and to this country that you and I might not even have dreamed of. Those people told us: "We are here with our gifts. We are desirous of being involved. We want to stand neck and neck with everyone else. We want to compete. We don't want anything given to us. We only ask that you move from behind the door so that when we push it open, it does open."

We have waited a long time for the door to be opened. We have waited many years. It doesn't take a great deal of visual acuity to recognize that I am no longer a child, and my parents, who were here many years before -- my father actually came from Barbados. He was a superintendent of schools and wasn't able to teach in this province because they told him they had never had a black teacher. That was the reality of his life and he pushed on.

1620

There have been generations who have waited and finally it has taken this government at this time the courage and the determination to bring us all to the table; not a quota system, not something that puts me in a privileged position, but something that says we recognize what Canada looks like, we recognize that Canada is its people. Its people are women, its people are men, its people are black and white and every colour in between, and some of its people have disabilities, but all of those people have a right to contribute and to have access to those jobs that are there.

The member opposite talks about the fact that this government should be focusing on jobs, and so we have. Jobs Ontario is all about jobs. It's interesting that this suggestion should come from him, from a party that has in fact moved towards economic decisions which have removed jobs from this country and promised training and never given it to us. But he mentions it nevertheless, so we must believe, generously of course, that he is sincere. He says that we must look for jobs and that we should be providing jobs, and we have. But why is that an argument against this motion? Jobs are not in opposition to equity. Jobs should move hand in hand, step by step along with equity.

This summer and last I was responsible for the Jobs Ontario Youth program. We did something that seems to have been unique in that program: We had equity and access goals; no quotas. We said all youth will come to the door and all youth, as long as we have jobs, will be employed -- black, white -- and we said only those employers who will hire youth who are qualified from all of those groups, those who have disabilities, women, whatever, will be able to achieve and take advantage of the program. That's equity. We were able to employ over 1,000 more than the target of 10,000 jobs and we will continue to do so, because if this province is focused on providing jobs for its citizens, surely it must mean all of its citizens.

Sometimes when I sit in this House I wonder if hope and belief in this country have been relegated only to those who do not have the fruits of their labour, those who for years have been discriminated against, those who have had to have hope in order to go on. I have come to this place at this time to register my vote to put this legislation in place so that all God's children -- another quote from Martin Luther King -- can come to the table and say: "Yes, I have an opportunity. Yes, I have prepared myself. I am educated, I am trained, I am willing to learn. I have an opportunity. Yes, I will compete with the person next to me, be he male or white or whatever. But I have an opportunity."

The time is now. Some have said that we waited too long, in fact that we have stayed too long at the fair, that the time is now. The time is now and I register my vote as yes, the time is now.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): It is really with mixed feelings that I rise today to speak on yet another closure motion by this government, motion 20. I guess it's with some pleasure and with some displeasure that I am speaking.

The pleasure comes in knowing that hopefully I can put forward the agrifood industry's remarks and thoughts on this very important bill, employment equity, and how it affects the use of seasonal workers in farming and the processing communities. I'm very happy that just by chance the minister is here this afternoon. I wish he had been here earlier -- maybe I might have asked him a question -- but possibly he would give me his thoughts afterwards.

The displeasure comes, though, in knowing that the agrifood industry was not consulted or considered in this legislation. The member for St Andrew-St Patrick, in her remarks, just got finished saying that everyone was consulted. I can tell her that a great segment out there, the agrifood industry, was not consulted. They had no knowledge of this bill until I brought it to their attention. Yet the NDP government is invoking closure on a bill that really could have major ramifications on this important sector of our economy.

However, nobody seems to be surprised by this government's action, for it freely invoked closure on a great number of bills, since it is so self-servingly, it seems, in business to change the rules to suit its own measures. We know that back in, I believe it was, June 1992, they changed the rules of the House, and it seems to have been coincidentally with this bill receiving first reading. It's now becoming so commonplace that they just say, "Well, it's our way or the highway."

Surely they must realize that every member of the Legislature was elected to represent their riding's views. If anybody should know, the NDP government should know that debates offer the public an opportunity to better understand and be informed about legislation that will directly affect it. This understanding can sometimes lead to affect parties in bringing forward ideas that perhaps the government hadn't even considered.

I know that earlier the government House leader said that we in the opposition hold up legislation, that they haven't passed as many bills as they wanted to. In fact, I believe the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, in the resources committee yesterday or the day before, mentioned the same thing, that we were being obstructionist and that they would pass only 15 bills this session, and that previous governments would pass 30 in a session.

I really would ask that you don't blame us for your inability to put forward and draft proper legislation. It really is not our fault that your bills need 200 to 300 amendments sometimes. I'm sure the member for Halton Centre would really concur with that statement. In fact, this very bill that we're talking about, or will be talking about, I understand has 200 amendments. It takes time to go through all of those. Really, if legislation were properly drafted, possibly there would not have to be so many changes.

It's been a year and a half since the NDP changed the rules, and it's been a year and a half since it introduced this bill. Throughout and through all of this time they haven't allowed a full debate on employment equity, and now, to get their quota of bills passed, they use their new rules once again to invoke closure. It sort of, in some ways, reminds me a lot of the previous federal Tory government, which constantly used closure. Perhaps it's how the third party here can justify voting in favour of the rule changes, as I recall, last time. It seems that closure is becoming a way of life at Queen's Park.

1630

If I could go back to this summer when the employment equity bill was before the standing committee on administration of justice, at the end of the summer I was subbed in on the justice committee. The hearings were over and we were into clause-by-clause. There was discussion around the definition of "employee" in subsection 3(1). In the copy of the bill which I know anybody in the public can ask for and which I'm sure most people, if they were interested in the bill, would have carefully gone over, it says:

"'Employee' means an employee as determined in accordance with the common law and includes an individual who is primarily working for an employer on a commission basis and such others as are designated in the regulations."

When I happened to be in the committee on September 7, 8 and 9, I found out that, my goodness, this meaning had been changed by the government. It now included seasonal workers. Anybody who got a copy of the bill really would not know that. So I was very upset, because it suddenly occurred to me that the agricultural industry and any packing plants or possibly any processing plants certainly use seasonal workers. I know that when I called the OFA office, they didn't know anything about this bill. They didn't know that it would affect them. In fact, they were very disturbed.

With the help of the member for St George-St David, I drafted an amendment that would exclude seasonal workers so that they would not be included in the employment equity bill. Unfortunately, the government members all voted against it and it did not go forward, so right now seasonal workers are included. I really believe that perhaps the government does not realize what this can mean for farmers and processing plants and packing plants.

We know that agriculture is the only industry that employs offshore workers. The offshore workers arrive here from the host country and are sent by the host country. Usually, the farmer has not complete say, or very little say, in who is sent. So I really believe this was a place in the bill that should have received some consideration and some change. I know the agricultural business needs committed employees, especially at harvest time, because often the crops cannot wait. They have to be dealt with at a certain time in order that the crops aren't lost. This is why they contract to have seasonal workers come from offshore, so the job can get done.

When I asked the parliamentary assistant about this, he really didn't know just exactly how to address this. I asked him whether or not anything would be done. I was told that it would be addressed in the regulations. Okay, at least it's going to be addressed, although at first he said there was one section of the bill -- I believe it's section 50 -- where farmers or anyone can apply to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and maybe get an exemption. But here again, we're not talking about a company that has a president, where this one person can just make application to exempt everybody. Here we are talking in some ways about individual farmers, farmers who are very, very busy and who perhaps don't even know that they must apply or can apply for an exemption.

I was not satisfied, certainly, with that section of the bill covering them off. I really did not feel that would be satisfactory to the farm community out there. I felt at the time that the parliamentary assistant who was carrying the bill did not really have a solid knowledge of what happens in rural Ontario and in fact in the agricultural industry.

He said, "Well, the association could look after it." That would be fine, but the main body, the OFA, as yet does not represent every farmer. Right now, I believe they represent 20,000 farmers, but again, they may not represent all of the farmers who would be affected by this bill. So I did not feel that was a reasonable solution to the problem.

I was again assured that the regulations would look after this. I believe it was approximately a month ago that I spoke to the minister and to the parliamentary assistant to ask whether or not these regulations were in fact prepared yet. They both said they were being worked on and they were not ready yet. So I asked if I could have a copy of those regulations just as soon as they were ready. They assured me, or at least the parliamentary assistant assured me, that I would get a copy. That has not happened yet, so I guess I am to take this giant leap of faith that they're going to be there. Because of the fact that we are debating a closure motion that will see this bill hurried through, without the assurances I really am concerned.

I know that I spoke recently to farmers down in Essex South. That's the area that's about to elect Bruce Crozier. He will be joining us and we will be very, very happy to welcome him here. Farmers there were very concerned. They really were not assured at all that this employment equity bill would really be solved and that they would in fact be exempt.

Certainly last week, I was at a meeting of the Durham-Northumberland apple growers, and the guest speaker, Mr Ken Wilson, a horticultural crop adviser from Clarksburg, was telling us that in the Georgian Bay area there are over 800 seasonal workers in the apple industry. Without the exemption to the employment equity bill, they're very, very concerned about how this is going to affect them.

The Premier, I believe, spoke last night at Vision 2020. He talked about building partnerships in the agrifood industry and about consultation and cooperation. In fact, I know that the minister in his address to the OFA and last night also speaks about that.

I've always found the minister to really try very, very hard to consult, but I'm just wondering what happened here. Was there a breakdown in communication? Why didn't the Ministry of Agriculture and Food know that this would affect agriculture? Why didn't he really make sure that this bill adequately put to rest the concerns of the farmers?

1640

I'm not very happy and am certainly very displeased that we have to have closure on this very important bill before we get some of these concerns straightened out. I believe that maybe one of my other colleagues would like to speak, so I'll leave him the rest of the time.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to the issue of closure, the closure motion that's been brought forward this afternoon to end the committee deliberations on Bill 79.

We've heard some interesting speeches this afternoon. I'm pleased to follow the member for Northumberland. I think she gave a very good account of how this bill may impact on farm families, farm communities, and as a representative of a rural area that concerns me as well.

I know without a doubt that the people in Wellington county, the majority of them, do not support this bill. I have surveyed them through a survey that was sent out in the summer of this year. I asked a question and I used the government's terminology. I'd like to read the question that I asked just so that all members of the House are aware of the fairness of the question. We certainly took a great effort to make sure the question was fair. I indicated what the background of the issue was and I wrote:

"The provincial government has introduced employment equity legislation, Bill 79, which would require employers to hire new employees from four equity groups to reflect the proportion of these groups in the community. The designated groups are aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women.

"Supporters of employment equity believe that these groups have traditionally been overlooked by employers because of discriminatory hiring practices. Employment equity is a way of correcting past and present injustices and of giving certain excluded groups a chance to develop experience in the workplace."

I think that's a fairly accurate characterization of the government's arguments in favour of this bill. I said:

"Opponents of this bill say that it will create job quotas and that hiring should be based on ability. They argue that employment equity is reverse discrimination in that businesses will have the added expense of formulating equity plans and that hiring according to prescribed equity criteria is stigmatizing and insulting. The real winners, they argue, will be the consultants who profit from developing employment equity plans for businesses."

I asked the question, "Do you agree with the government's position on employment equity?" I believe 73% said no. The people of Wellington county see this bill for what it is; it's not employment equity.

I must say that in my own view of the world I see that we must have fair hiring practices in Ontario. To the extent that we can enforce that, we should do so. Hiring should be based on merit and qualifications first and foremost, and in every case those should be applied. I support fair hiring practices with the best-qualified candidate for a job, as judged by the employer, receiving the job. No one should ever, ever be denied a job opportunity because of discrimination stemming from their gender or their skin colour. I think most members of this House agree with that. I hope that all members do and I believe that in fact they do.

Where we have a difference of opinion, a strong and profound and deep emotional difference of opinion, is where we see the government coming forward and, I must say, bringing in and enforcing a system of quotas which will force employers to hire a certain number of people. What the government is intending to do is categorize people according to race, according to gender, and suggesting that employers must hire on those criteria. I find that offensive. It's wrong. The people of Wellington county believe that approach is absolutely wrong. It's wrong and we must speak against this.

I don't want to speak at great length because I know my colleague the member for Etobicoke West wants to have an opportunity to speak. But I want to keep my own emotional view on this in check because I find this bill to be very, very offensive, and it's wrong.

I was pleased to see an article by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Thunder Bay, which appeared in the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal recently. She was writing an article on the issue of this bill. I'd like to quote something she wrote. She said:

"I'm concerned when some react in frustration to the slow pace of progress and propose quotas as an answer. I share their impatience, but I do not share their solution. Quotas do not advance the principle of equality; they violate it. Quotas carry an implicit assumption that women are unable to compete on the basis of their skills and experience."

I'm sure we could continue that line of reasoning to include categorizing people according to race, according to their relative disability and so on.

"I categorically reject that assumption. Women do not need guaranteed access; they need open access."

Again, I think the Leader of the Opposition is right on when she says this. When I saw that I was pleased, but I also remembered an article which had appeared in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record on August 7, 1992.

I'm sure all members of the House will recall a very controversial issue which came forward around that time. The city of Kitchener had a hiring policy for its fire department. What the hiring policy said was that white men applying to become firefighters had to score at least 85% on a test before proceeding in the selection process. Women and visible minorities, meanwhile, needed only 70%. Once again, 85% for white men, 70% for women and visible minorities. The city of Kitchener argued that it was a good policy and a policy it should enter into.

In my understanding of this, I think there's an implicit assumption that you have to have a lower standard for women and visible minorities or they will not be able to compete head to head. I think that's very clear. Why else would you need two different standards, one higher standard for white males and a lower standard for women? That says without a doubt that the city of Kitchener feels that's the policy it should undergo.

But at that time the Leader of the Opposition indicated that she supported that policy. I have that article here. If I'm assuming that she was quoted correctly, she indicated she supported that policy. I hope she has reviewed that particular position in light of what this government is doing today.

This government promised so-called employment equity in its Agenda for People. Of course, many of the promises they made in the election of 1990 they have since rejected.

Interjection.

Mr Arnott: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying this is your promise as you said in 1990. "New Democrats believe that everyone has a right to fair employment opportunities, without discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability." I agree with that position that they've articulated. "Everyone has a right to fair employment opportunities, without discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability."

Now we get to the infamous Job Mart article that appeared in the publication that goes out which includes public service opportunities. These are government jobs. A senior management position on the front page of this Job Mart -- I'm quoting from the Job Mart of November 5 -- says, "Director, information technology services branch." This was the job, a fairly senior public service job. It says here:

"(Restricted)

"As a positive measure initiative under the Ontario public service employment equity program and consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code, this competition is limited to the following employment equity designated groups: aboriginal peoples, francophones, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women."

In other words, white males need not apply, and if white males apply, their résumés will be chucked in the garbage, I assume. This is reverse discrimination, without a doubt. This is an example of reverse discrimination; no one can dispute it.

The government House leader, when this information was presented to him by the media, indicated that yes, this was the appropriate policy and this was reflective of the government's policy and it was the right thing to do. Of course, when the Premier realized that in fact the media had finally realized and it was getting out into Ontario what exactly this so-called employment equity bill meant, he said, "We'll pull the ad."

They have not pulled the policy. This so-called employment equity bill, which is in fact a jobs quota bill, this is exactly what it means. This Job Mart article, in this specific instance, is reverse discrimination; it's undisputable. This is what's going to happen. If this bill is allowed to pass, we're going to see this happen more and more. We're going to be able to point to specific instances where the government is sanctioning reverse discrimination.

Again, I must say the people of Wellington do not support reverse discrimination. They support fair hiring practices where everyone should have an equal opportunity to have a job. A job opportunity should be open to all who qualify and who wish to apply.

1650

I suppose I'm pretty well near the end of my argument on this bill. We must remember that this is a closure bill which is shutting down debate on this bill such that we can't properly debate this.

We've already seen the government employ closure routinely now. They feel they've got 18 months to go and they want to ram as much socialism down our throats as they possibly can. They'll endeavour to do that, I know, over the next 18 months and that concerns me greatly.

I must restate that this bill is not employment equity. It's reverse discrimination in many specific circumstances. We're going to see that, as I'm quite confident the government will use its hammer. It'll come down and this bill will become law before we go home for Christmas. We will see specific instances where reverse discrimination is being sanctioned by this government, and this is wrong.

Mr Sutherland: I'm pleased to participate in this debate. First of all, I want to deal with the issue that there has not been adequate time to debate this.

The Minister of Citizenship, the Honourable Elaine Ziemba, took a very consultative process, a very inclusive process. She had a working committee, an advisory committee made up of business, labour, equity groups etc to help develop a piece of legislation. The minister has done an excellent job of going around the province discussing it. The Employment Equity Commissioner has done the same thing. There's been a lot of discussion over the last two and a half to three years out in the public about employment equity.

With regard to the specifics of the legislation, I just want to remind everybody that there was a little over eight hours of debate at second reading, and just in terms of public hearings and clause-by-clause -- the opposition has said there hasn't been much time -- there were 92 hours at committee on public hearings and clause-by-clause debate. Now, 92 hours is not a short period of time. That is very extensive debate.

I want to say that I think we do need to move forward on the issue of employment equity. I want to talk about a few issues that I've heard raised over the period of the debate.

The opposition has cited the ad in Job Mart. What an outrage over that ad. I think we all heard it. But I found it very interesting that the article in one of the local papers that precipitated this outrage only told some of the story. They never said that in that management position, over the last year 60% of the hirings had been white males. They left out that information. When you put that in the context of this ad being placed, then I think you see: "Well, wait minute. Lots of white males are being hired. There isn't reverse discrimination going on."

Interjection: Only 38% of the population.

Mr Sutherland: Yes, and they only make up 40% of the population, yet 60% of the hirings in the last year. Let's tell the whole story here. Let's not tell some of it; let's tell the whole story.

The positive measures were only going to be used for approximately 1% of all hirings. The way you hear the opposition talk, you'd think it was going to be for 100% of the hirings. That's not the case. We need to get all the facts on the table in terms of having a healthy debate.

Of course, the third party, when they were in government, ruled for 42 years in a period, we know they may want to tell us, of wonderful management, and try to leave the impression that maybe there was no discrimination going on. We know that back in those days for certain hirings with certain types of public institutions, if you weren't a member of the Orange lodge or you didn't belong to a certain group, then you couldn't get hired. That's what went on.

While in many ways we have a positive history of tolerance, we do have examples in our past that still continue today, not those ones I mentioned but other examples that still continue today to impede equity.

During the hearings, one of the groups that came forward -- and I wasn't at the actual hearings when they came forward and made their presentation, but the Ontario Restaurant Association was quoted from the hearings as saying that merit should be the determining factor, that merit must be part of this bill, and we've heard this argument from the opposition.

If merit was the principle, there wouldn't be a need for this legislation, but we know that's not the case. I want to tell you that I was very surprised when I heard this from the restaurant association, because from my personal opinion, I don't think they're going into their members' restaurants.

If any of the other members, or yourself, Mr Speaker, have gone into some of the roadhouse type places like Kelsey's, Casey's, those types of places, look around them next time you go in and tell me whether you've got a diverse workforce. Tell me whether all the community is represented.

I would suggest that not only on some of the factors here -- I would suggest that some of those places may even use other features for determining. I must say that I don't see too many people working in those types of restaurants who may be a bit overweight etc. I know from people who have worked there, who have gone through some of the interviews, who have indicated to me that merit is not the number one principle in many cases used for determining hiring. That's the reality of the situation.

We may want to assume that merit is, but when we encourage people who are out of work to go and look for jobs, how do we encourage people? What do we say? "Use all your contacts. Use all your networks." Many people get their jobs through contacts and networks they have. That doesn't mean they're hiring the best person; it means they knew someone. They were able to get in and they were able to get the job. Is the merit principle applying in those cases? We know the vast majority of people get employed that way.

If you don't advertise for a job and you go through that process, then you're not going to get the best person either, because your applicant pool is very limited. We're talking about developing and going forward with a piece of legislation that will allow a broader applicant pool, which in my view is only going to help business people because they're going to get better applicants. They're going to get better applicants from all groups.

One of the other issues that I hear from people in my riding sometimes is regarding police forces and the fact that white males can't get hired by police forces. Mr Speaker, I want to tell you and everyone here that's simply not the case. The statistics show that in the first six months of having the employment equity requirements in place approximately 38% hired on to municipal forces were white males. In the OPP, it was about 35%.

I happened to be out on the local golf course in the summer and I ran into two people who asked me to go golfing with them. I found out they're from the Aylmer police college. They were two white males, they had just recently been hired and they were going through the course with the OPP. Of course I told them, "Gee, I hear from a lot of people that white males can't get hired by the OPP." They told me: "Well, that's not the case. We have been." But they also said they had 6,500 applications for 250 spots. We need to understand that there are a lot of people applying. Some white males aren't going to get hired. I'm sure a lot of people from the designated groups aren't getting hired for those either.

I think it is clear that the arguments, the myths that are out there around employment equity, this kind of false outrage that the opposition put forward over this one particular ad -- when we look at the whole story, when we present the whole information, we understand, we see and the people see very clearly that the types of things you put forward, the merit argument and the other argument, don't hold a lot of water in the actual practices that are taking place.

All of us wish we didn't need to do employment equity, but the reality of the situation is that there are other ways, there are methods out there that are being used so that the people from the designated groups are not being hired.

Two and a half years of consultation, eight hours in second reading, 92 hours in committee: We need to move forward on this piece of legislation. Let's get on with it.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I regret that I have only a small amount of time, because of the time allocation, to speak on this legislation, but I want to indicate how disappointed I am that, first of all, we have the fifth closure motion in the past two weeks before this House, because we spend more of our time now debating closure motions than we do actual legislation. That's most unfortunate, because I think there is a lot of information that can be provided to the public on both sides of issues if we have sufficient time to debate.

The government House leader has talked about lengthy debates that take place over legislation introduced by the NDP government. One of the very legitimate reasons for this is that much of the legislation the NDP has introduced is clearly outside of the mainstream of public opinion in the province. It's still the government's right to introduce it, but I think it means there has to be much more careful and perhaps prolonged discussion of those measures for the government to justify them or the opposition to prove that in fact they are not beneficial to the province.

1700

By rushing this bill through the Legislature, the public will not be fully informed of all of the issues that there are to be canvassed by various members. I think it's very helpful when the member for Oxford gets up or the member for Wellington gets up and talks about different views on this, because it tends to provide the information the public needs to make its particular decision.

I am concerned about this legislation because I think this legislation is in fact going off the tracks. I'm worried that the good intention that's behind employment equity is being lost by the implementation, through the ad to which I'll make some reference, through some of the provisions of this bill and through the rejection of some of the amendments that have been put forward by the opposition.

This of course is going to give fuel to those who want to use this kind of issue for political purposes, and that is very disconcerting. I think the overwhelming majority of people in this province oppose discrimination. Many of us who have sat in this House for a number of years have spent our lives fighting discrimination of various kinds, whether it's gender, whether it's race, whether it's religion, whether it's against those with disabilities. For this reason, I believe that we have to do things of a positive nature, that we have to encourage those of groups that have been denied the opportunity in the past to come into the public service and go into the private sector. So active recruitment is reasonable and encouragement is reasonable.

Where we are starting to see the opposition form among the general public is when we say things such as the ad that was provided. The ad was in Job Mart, which is a government publication, and said the following:

This is not well received in the general community because the general community wants everybody to have access, wants to see discrimination stamped out in our society, but the general population, fairminded people, does not want to see one specific group of individuals excluded from the opportunity to apply for employment positions.

Some of my colleagues on the committee have put forward, I think, some reasonable amendments which have been defeated by the government. One amendment says that the employer should be allowed to hire the best-qualified person. There are many people of all categories that are mentioned by government who are very well qualified, who have done well in the public service and in the private sector. We're seeing more and more of those people involved in our society in employment positions in a way that wasn't the case in the past, and that is very positive to see. But I believe the employer should always have that right to hire the best-qualified person, and we're going to find that's going to represent a good cross-section of the population.

Second, we moved an amendment in the Liberal Party to prevent exclusion of any group or individual from consideration. That was a very positive amendment which was defeated.

I understand the legislation allows the government, if nothing else works, to be unfettered in its power to impose quotas. I think that would be undesirable.

There have been a few people who have made arguments about this that are rather interesting. I don't have the time to go into the details, but Alan Borovoy is a person who has fought for civil rights over the years. I haven't always agreed with him; I've always respected the fact that he even took positions with which I would find myself in disagreement and he was a consistent individual. That's why he's managed probably to annoy most people in this province, because of his consistency, no matter what the position has been. He's argued cases that would be clearly in his own mind, to his own thoughts, certainly not very pleasant, but he's argued those in terms of civil rights.

A second is Stephen Lewis. I could quote from this. I don't want to quote, because I think it's unfair to Mr Lewis for me to simply quote one or two sections and not everything he had to say. But Stephen Lewis did express, through an article in the Star by John Deverell, his concern that the kind of ad that we saw was not the route to go. As I say, I could quote a few paragraphs, but I would want to quote the whole thing.

Also, Tom Walkom summed this up very well in his column, and I'm going to read this column because it deals with the act. It says: "Management Board Chair Brian Charlton told the Legislature then that the program would not 'in any way restrict jobs in the public service to designated groups.' That is, white, able-bodied males would not be barred from applying for work.

"Charlton was either wrong or deliberately disingenuous. Last week, the government published a job ad for an information technologies director. The ad did just what Charlton had said it would not do: It told white, able-bodied males they need not apply.

"This week, Charlton defended restricted access hiring. He said it would be used for an unspecified but small number of senior civil service jobs. He agreed that the government is actively discriminating against a specific group but said this is necessary to correct historic injustices. In this, Charlton and the government are very wrong. They are wrong in principle, wrong in practice."

Mr Walkom goes on to mention many reasons why he believes this to be wrong, and I don't have the time this afternoon to make those arguments.

I simply caution the government today that if it wants to engender goodwill -- and this is never easy legislation to pass. That's admittedly so; it's very difficult legislation to pass. But if you're going to have this kind of promotion of people who in the past have not had those opportunities, if you're encouraging those opportunities today, you can't come forward with ads of this kind. You can't give an indication that there are going to be formal or informal quotas, and you must give a fair opportunity for everyone in this province, regardless of background, regardless of the way they look, sound or talk, an equal opportunity. I think the public would support that, but certainly not what we refer to as discrimination in reverse.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Stockwell: I don't relish the opportunity of debating another closure motion, because I think we've had far too many in far too brief a period of time. It concerns me that a government that changed the rules a short time ago to facilitate more legislation being passed in this place would move closure to such a large degree as they have in the past few weeks. They've limited the amount of time we as members can debate an issue. They've strictly eliminated the opportunity to speak to a series of issues.

Hon Mr Cooke: Nothing like what happens in Britain and in Ottawa.

Mr Stockwell: I hear the Education minister heckling about "Nothing like what happens elsewhere." But, you know, when they were in opposition, they took full advantage of those particular opportunities to speak against certain pieces of legislation. You only have to remind them of one issue, and that was Mr Kormos's 17 hours spent on auto insurance.

Hon Mr Cooke: Once.

Mr Stockwell: Once. The member makes it sound like once they got up and spoke for more than half an hour about something. That's all we can do is speak half an hour on an issue. I've been through Hansard a number of times. Members opposite, in opposition, would speak for a number of hours on issues -- one, two, three, four hours on subjects that they didn't particularly agree with -- because they wanted to deal with a lot of issues that some legislation dealt with, and I thought it was a reasonable thing to do.

We in this party voted for the rule changes because we said, "If you promise not to be draconian, that you're not going to bring in closure motions," and we were given that undertaking. Yet here we are in a two-week period with more closure motions than some entire legislatures have had to deal with. It's just completely irrational of this government to start charging the opposition with holding up legislation when it's moving closure motions and limiting debate.

Hon Mr Cooke: You're going to talk about being irrational.

Mr Stockwell: Let's talk rational about this opposition party, when they were in opposition. Let's talk about the teachers' strike where they legislated them back to work. They wanted unanimous consent. Just yesterday you wanted unanimous consent for the Parry Sound teachers. When was the last time you agreed to or gave unanimous consent in opposition to force people to go back to work? I ask him. Give me an example.

Hon Mr Cooke: Every time.

Mr Stockwell: Every time. They forced workers to go back. They broke strikes every time when they were in opposition; so says the Minister of Education and Training. It is just unbelievable that he even has the nerve to say that.

1710

Hon Mr Cooke: Chris, you're bonkers. You don't know what you're talking about.

Mr Stockwell: Then, I ask about the member for St Catharines, who spoke about that exact issue yesterday: Maybe you should have challenged him when he said, "You weren't the easiest opposition party to get along with regarding strike-breaking legislation." Now I've got the Minister of Education telling me they supported, every time, unanimous consent to break strikes. So now we've got not only a change across the floor, they're trying to rewrite history too.

What we have is a definition problem here, the definition of -- what's their term for it? -- numerical goals. You see, this government wants to call them numerical goals. They think, by calling them numerical goals, it changes what numerical goals mean.

Hon Mr Cooke: We're not debating the legislation.

Mr Stockwell: I'm debating the legislation.

Hon Mr Cooke: We're on the time allocation.

Mr Stockwell: Numerical goals seem to change their point of view or they're thinking that they're changing the perspective of the people out there who begin to read this legislation. It's a definition problem, you see. Why they call them numerical goals is they don't want people to call them quotas, because quotas are something that very few people would agree with. So rather than calling them quotas, we'll call them numerical goals.

Let's discover what "numerical goal" means.

Mr Bradley: What does strike-breaking mean?

Mr Stockwell: Different things to different people, clearly. Numerical goals mean this: If your business is in a certain area of this province, then you must have a certain makeup in your workforce that reflects the community your business is in. If there are so many women, if there are so many visible minorities, if there are so many disabled, you must have that workforce working as a percentage in your place of employment.

What it comes down to is this: They're asking companies to take a total review of their employees, asking questions like: Are you disabled? Are you a woman? Are you a visible minority? Are you an aboriginal person? That's what they ask the employers to do. Then they ask the employers to compile in some instances, according to the committee, a 600- or 700-page report. That report is then shortened up to a certificate form and sent to ministry officials.

What you have to do as an employer when you've accomplished this goal is then ensure in a timetable of a period of years that your workforce in your business is proportionately the same as the makeup of your community.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): This guy's irrational.

Mr Stockwell: If I'm irrational, it's your legislation. That's what the legislation says. So if 52% of the people who live in your community are women, 52% of the people who work at your business must be women; if 15% are a visible minority, 15% must be a visible minority at your place of business. This is what they call numerical goals.

If you don't meet those numerical goals/quotas when hiring in the future or in a two-year period, you must meet these numerical goals/quotas according to this piece of legislation. What businesses will have to do in a two-year period is meet these goals. If they don't, they're subject to fine, they're subject to the wrath of the government coming down on them and, in some instances, far greater penalties than just a $50,000 fine.

If you're going out to find somebody to do a job and you're running a business and you are short on women and the best applicant who applies for the job opening happens to be a man or the best 10 applicants happen to be men, you must hire the 11th-best applicant, who is a woman, because you haven't met your numerical goals. So in essence, you haven't met your quota. That is exactly what this legislation says.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's not true.

Mr Stockwell: They say, "Not true." I've asked at committee, I've asked in the Legislature, many have asked, to explain the difference between "numerical goals" and "quotas," and they can't because there is no difference. Numerical goals is a percentage of your workforce based on visible minorities, aboriginal people, people with disabilities and women.

So what is that? Simply calling it a numerical goal doesn't mean it's not a quota. Just because you want to change the name from "quota" to "numerical goal" doesn't change the definition. It makes it a quota, just like enhanced revenues make it a tax, just because parental contribution makes it user fees. Because you change the name doesn't mean you change the definition. What is the fallout of this piece of legislation?

We have, on October 15, the Chair of Management Board standing up answering a question on my behalf when I asked him, point blank, "Are you now telling us, according to your Management Board minutes, that you are going to exclude certain people from applying for government work?" And, like today, on October 15 the member rose in this place and said "Nothing of the sort." I was incapable of reading and therefore I was absolutely wrong. Then the issue of Job Mart came out. Much like numerical goals and quotas, if he seems to stand up and say it, he thinks it doesn't happen. Well, it happened.

We read November 5, 1993, after hearing the comments from the Chair of Management Board with respect to exclusive hiring practices and we see, as it has been read many times in this House, they have a senior management job, the director of the information technology services branch, and it had in brackets, "restricted." In essence, no white, English-speaking males need apply.

And for a period of some four or five days, the Chair of Management Board stood up and defended this. He defended this policy and, in the same instance, at one point in time during this debate, the Premier defended this hiring practice. I can only assume that the Chair of Management Board and the Premier, defending a certain hiring practice, would likely make it government policy. They were bombarded with phone calls from people across this province who found that ad offensive and they changed their minds. So they changed their minds and are trying to rewrite the history of this particular provincial government.

So what's the difference between this ad that they've denounced and Bill 79? Nothing. There's no difference at all. In this ad they had a quota and the quota said, "We must have one of those affected groups fill this job," and that policy was defended by the minister and the Premier.

So Bill 79 comes out calling for numerical goals, and numerical goals, as I explained earlier, means that a percentage of the people who work in your place, regardless of hiring on merit, must meet the percentage of the community that you have your business in. So what does that make it? It makes it the same as this ad that they found so effective and progressive and, three days later, so offensive that they withdrew it. It makes it the same as that ad; it makes it a quota or discriminatory. Discriminatory.

Hon Mr Cooke: Wrong.

Mr Stockwell: The Education minister can say "wrong" all he likes because the facts are on the table. The facts are this ad went into the paper. The facts are, your minister defended it. The facts are, the Premier defended it and the fact is, you got bombarded with phone calls and you retreated. If this is their policy, I say to the government: Defend it. Defend your policy. I say: Defend your policy in the truest form. Defend your policy to the people of this province. Defend your ad. If you believe that's the good way to go, if you believe that's right, defend it.

Go out and talk to the people of this province and tell them why it's a good thing to do and what's helpful about it and why it'll make for a better province, but don't try and change the words without changing the definition and pretend you're doing something different, because I find it offensive, because people out there, according to Bill 79, will agree with quotas. There are a lot of people out there who will agree with them.

There are a lot of people who will say: "Yes, we should be hiring based on filling certain requirements of the community around the business. Yes, we should be hiring women based on the fact they're women. Yes, we should be hiring aboriginals based on the fact they're aboriginals. Yes, people with disabilities and women should be hired, and racial minorities, based on those facts." There are people who will agree with you, and that's what you had intended, completely and thoroughly intended, with this ad.

1720

Hon Mr Cooke: Wrong.

Mr Stockwell: Of course you did, Mr Minister of Education. Why did your Premier defend the ad, I ask you. Why did he defend the ad then? Why did your minister defend the ad? Why did he defend the ad?

Hon Mr Cooke: You've distorted everything this afternoon.

Mr Stockwell: I tell you he defended the ad because he agreed with it, then he got bombarded with calls and suddenly political pressure took hold and he didn't agree with it.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat? I would ask the member not to be provocative. You have the right to express your opinions, but you don't have to bring other members into it.

Mr Stockwell: Madam Speaker, I say to the people watching and to government members, I say to them directly, numerical goals mean -- and it can't be any simpler; it's in the legislation -- you must meet certain levels of employment with respect to certain groups.

Hon Mr Cooke: Wrong.

Mr Stockwell: If it doesn't mean that, then what is Bill 79 doing? What is Bill 79 doing if it doesn't mean that? Why are companies going through 600- and 700-page reports to give a program to hire these people in certain jobs to reach certain percentages? I ask them that. If that's not what it means, then what is it supposed to do?

Hon Mr Cooke: You haven't even read the bill.

Mr Stockwell: The Minister of Education sits here. He can't answer a question with respect to why his Premier defended this ad. He can't answer the question of why the minister defended the ad. He can't answer the question of why this ad appeared in the first place. But we don't know it. I asked the question originally and I was told I couldn't read, much like the arrogant attitude of the Minister of Education now -- that I can't read. But I could read because it happened. But we're wrong, oh, yes, we're wrong. Although it happened, although what we say took place, although this happened and the Premier defended it, although it happened and the minister defended it, we're wrong.

Hon Mr Cooke: You've distorted the facts.

Mr Stockwell: We're wrong, the Premier didn't defend the ad?

Hon Mr Cooke: You've totally distorted the facts.

Mr Stockwell: The Premier didn't defend the ad, the minister didn't defend the ad? I didn't go on a radio station in Hamilton and have the minister on there for 20 minutes defending the ad, that yes, it was going to discriminate but it was something that we needed to do? I imagined all that?

Hon Mr Cooke: The ad was withdrawn.

Mr Stockwell: The ad was withdrawn after he defended it and you got public pressure to withdraw it.

Hon Mr Cooke: You've distorted what happened in that four or five days.

Mr Stockwell: I've distorted what happened in that four or five days. You know, this is really incredible. The Premier defended it, the minister went on the public hustings defending it and this minister says I distorted what happened. I didn't have a gun to the Premier's head. He said what he said. He defended the ad. I didn't have a gun to the minister's head. He said what he said. He said it was a good idea. All I said was it was discrimination. I'm not putting words in their mouths. They said it was a good idea. They supported it. Now they say, five days later, they don't support it. And I'm distorting what happened? I don't think I'm distorting it.

What we have here is a definition problem. They don't want to say Bill 79 has quotas, so what do they say it has? It has numerical goals, as if changing the words changes the definition. I guess what I'm saying is that if you believe in quotas, go defend them. If you believe that these things should happen, like your ad, then defend it. But don't tell people you're not instituting quotas when that's exactly what you're instituting.

Hon Mr Cooke: There aren't quotas, and the member is distorting the facts again.

Mr Stockwell: The member can suggest there aren't quotas, but I will say to them, as I say to you, that I think the vast majority of Ontarians are going to decide in their own minds that these are quotas couched in NDP verbiage, and that verbiage is numerical goals. When that campaign comes up in 18 months, I'll be happy to debate the members opposite, and we'll let the people decide whether or not numerical goals equals quotas.

I'm very comfortable in having that debate publicly with the member for Windsor-Riverside, because I think the public will be very clear, as they were clear with the Job Mart ad. They find it distasteful, they find it discriminatory, they find it unacceptable. It's fundamentally, categorically, absolutely wrong, and in the province of Ontario, the good people of this province will not support discriminatory legislation and they will trounce them for trying it.

The Acting Speaker: At this time I'd like to draw to the attention of the House that in the west gallery we have the former member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, Mr Jack Johnson.

Further debate?

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Some years ago, in a history class, I learned that in an effort to legitimize slavery, religious leaders of the time told parishioners that blacks were childlike creatures, needed guidance from benevolent whites, had a lesser intellectual capacity, and that there was scientific proof for these statements. This so-called proof came from academics and political leaders of the day who spoke publicly and wrote articles on the subject.

I've always wondered at the shame some of those leaders must have felt years later when their names were linked to such despicable statements. Whenever I hear speeches regarding employment equity and statements about victimized white males and quotas from some of the opposition, I'm reminded of that history class.

I'm here today in the House to support the motion put forward by the government House leader. Over the last year, the Ministry of Citizenship has carried out extensive consultations with respect to employment equity. I think it's important for the members to know that a great deal of effort was put into the legislation, not only by the minister and the staff but also by the community at large.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Each member in this House has the right to speak and to be heard.

Mrs Mathyssen: I would like to review that hard work and the amount of time spent consulting with the people of Ontario with respect to employment equity.

In November 1990, employment equity was identified as a top priority. Recognizing the amount of input that would be needed, the minister moved forward, and in March 1991, Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré was appointed Ontario's first Employment Equity Commissioner. That summer the commissioner established a consultation advisory committee which included representatives from designated groups, labour, business and employment equity practitioners. The document Working Towards Equity, which was released in November 1991, was to form the basis of a province-wide consultation.

Throughout the time period from December 1991 to March 1992, the office of the Employment Equity Commissioner conducted public hearings, visited community-based organizations and workplaces in Ontario and attended more than 100 community meetings. Public forums were held in Windsor, London, Hamilton, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Timmins, Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto and Scarborough. The office received more than 400 written presentations.

The minister's technical advisory committee, which was established, as I said, in the summer of 1991, has provided much-valued input into the legislation and the draft regulation. That legislation was introduced into this House in June 1992. It finally received second reading in July 1993, after more than eight hours of debate.

It was the plan of the government to complete second reading in order to get the bill to committee and out to the public over the summer, but once again employment equity was dealt a poor hand by the members of the opposition parties.

Mr Mills: Ninety-two hours, and you people say closure.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East, come to order.

1730

Mrs Mathyssen: The opposition refused to allow the committee to travel over the summer to hear from all Ontarians, and the disappointment was felt province-wide. The opposition refused to allow the committee to advertise. This is tantamount to blocking the rights of the people of the province of Ontario to have their input into the bill.

Just yesterday, representatives of the federation of provincial firefighters expressed dismay that they missed an opportunity to address this issue because the public hearings were not well advertised.

The opposition has provided no sound criticism of Bill 79 throughout the hearings. Granted, we as politicians, and certainly politicians like those in opposition, must scrutinize the conduct of government, but we are also leaders in this province and in our communities and we share a responsibility to promote the advancement of our society and its institutions. But the behaviour of the opposition during committee has been to endlessly repeat rhetoric, and I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that the only ones who are enamoured of the sounds of their own voices and the beauty thereof are the opposition.

Because we listened to the concerns of the public during public hearings, we came forward with amendments which addressed many issues --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't see a quorum in the House at this time.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk please check to see if there is a quorum present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is present, Speaker.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: To the member for Mississauga South, maybe the intention is to abuse the parliamentary procedure here. That's not acceptable.

The Acting Speaker: She was not doing that. The member for Middlesex, please continue.

Mrs Mathyssen: Because we listened to the concerns of the public during those public hearings, we came forward with amendments that addressed many issues dealing with workplace, individual and collective rights. We've tried to engage the opposition in constructive input on this bill, but to no avail.

During the public hearings, we heard from many employers, designated group members and bargaining agents. We addressed their issues in a fair and balanced way. During the consultations and hearings process, we heard these groups and agents confirm over and over again their support for employment equity. As government members, our main responsibility with this bill is to take the concept of employment equity and bring it forward in a fair and workable piece of legislation that will have meaning and purpose in our workplaces, a piece of legislation that will take us forward into the workplaces of the future.

The real challenge to us as legislators is to take a concept and a vision of employment equity and transform it into a reality. In an ideal workplace, there would be no need for this law because we would have fair and equitable employment practices everywhere in Ontario. This ideal does not exist.

Like the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, I have some personal experience in this regard. As a young teacher, I was looking for a job and I applied for a job in a school where I had worked for some time and where they knew my work. It came down to a competition between me and a young male. The principal looked at me and said: "Well, I can't hire you. You're a woman. In fact, you're a married woman. As a married woman, you're likely to commit pregnancy. So I'm going to hire this young male because he has his whole career in front of him."

As it happens, I did commit pregnancy, but I went on to resume my career and I worked for 10 years until I was elected to this place.

I don't want that to happen to another woman. I don't want that to happen to another person in this province, be it woman, aboriginal or visible minority. That's why I'm saying let's get on with it. Let's pass this bill and let's make the workplaces of Ontario equitable for each and every one of us.

Mr Perruzza: It's indeed a pleasure to be able to rise once again and speak to the motion we have in front of us today, a motion of closure. For many people here in this chamber and for many people out there who may not know what time allocation actually is, it's a time when we talk about the whole novel concept of when we are going to stop talking and take the next step in the legislative process, in the legislative exercise. That's what we are talking about here today.

I'd like to just very briefly drag something out, some comments that were made earlier. Thanks to Hansard and Instant Hansard and the fact that every word in this place is recorded almost instantaneously and reproduced for us, I would like to just go back to some of the comments that the Liberal member for St George-St David made in this chamber, where he talked about "getting rid of democracy" because "What we had in this House was a second reading debate that proceeded in its normal course," and about "stamping on democracy." Time allocation is stamping on democracy.

I'll tell you and I'll tell my one Liberal friend who happens to be in the House and my two Conservative friends who happen to be in the House here today to listen to this debate and to participate in this debate. I'll tell them that nothing could be more difficult for a New Democrat to do than to sit here and talk about --

Mr Stockwell: You tell us this every time there's closure.

Mr Perruzza: Madam Speaker, every once in a while the member from Etobicoke participates in the debate. It's too bad that the microphones don't pick him up, but I hear him really loud and clear in this House.

Madam Speaker, I have to tell you, nothing could be more difficult for a New Democrat to do than to talk about the whole concept of stopping the rhetoric and stopping the debate and moving on with the legislation, because I don't believe that there's anybody here in this chamber who believes in inclusiveness, who believes in consultation, who believes in getting out and talking to people more than New Democrats do.

In fact, when you look at the record, you look at the Conservative record on consultation and the Liberal record of involving people in the political process, you will find that they are dismal.

Mr Stockwell: Dismal?

Mr Perruzza: Dismal at best. When you look at and compare our record to both the Conservative and Liberal record on consultation, you will find that we shine right through, that we shine in a way that quite frankly they have never, never been able to do. If you look at and try to assess the amount of time that both Conservatives and Liberals allowed in debate during the 1980s when they governed this province, you will find that in each and every session they presided over, they moved through this Legislature, on average, 30 bills. We have only been able to muster, on average through our sessions, 15. I'll tell you why that's the case.

Mr Stockwell: Because you're incompetent boobs.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for Etobicoke West come to order.

Mr Perruzza: Because we provided critical, positive, productive opposition to legislation, while they do nothing but obstruct the legislative process.

1740

Their tactics span the spectrum. I'll raise only one example, an example that infuriated me in this Legislature: when the Conservative leader stood up in this House when we had lists and lists of legislation to go through this House, legislation that was designated to create jobs, designed to get jobs off of paper and into workplaces, and he stood up in this House day after day and obstructed the proceedings by reading every little river, every little creek and every little lake in the province of Ontario.

Mr Stockwell: We've heard this speech.

Mr Perruzza: My Conservative colleague says, "I've heard this comment before." You're right. You've heard this comment before and you're going to hear it again and again and again until you move from being an opposition that's just simply designed to obstruct, stall, defer, refer, hang on and hold on: "Let's go out a little more. Let's do a little more. Let's wait and sit on this a little longer. Don't do anything. Don't proceed. Don't move, because we don't want you to do anything."

We've got unprecedented unemployment. We have an economy which sadly needs leadership in just about every sector. We're here, prepared to take leadership, to provide leadership on a sector-by-sector basis to get the economy and to get jobs off the ground and moving and so on, and what do they do? They do nothing but obstruct.

I feel uneasy about supporting a motion of this nature, and quite frankly, I think my Conservative and Liberal friends play on a New Democrat weakness. I think that fundamentally we are soft. I think we can be swayed when arguments are put up in front of us and people say, "You haven't talked to enough people; you haven't consulted enough." The first instinct of a New Democrat is to say: "Okay, let's get out there and talk to a few more people, because sure, we can make it better. Let's include a few more people." We believe in including a few more people, because that's the kind of party and that's the kind of philosophy that I think we all aspire to.

Maybe we should take a page from our Conservative friends' book and maybe we should take another page from our Liberal friends' book on how they ran this place when they governed in the province of Ontario, on how they proceeded with matters. When they needed to go out and consult and when we said, "You need to include more people," more often than not they turned their backs and walked away, and I think that's unfair.

I just want to make one last comment on the employment equity legislation that's in front of us and just speak very briefly on other comments that were raised earlier by my Conservative friend Mr Carr when he talked about how this legislation would impact on business.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would like to be able to hear the member.

Mr Perruzza: If he had come to the committee hearings, he would have found that business, IBM, their friends -- the senior executive vice-president for IBM came and appeared before the committee and said: "This bill is a good bill for business. It's a good bill for us. Please move, please proceed, please get it going, because we believe this is good for us." I'm at a loss for the names of the other business people who came and appeared before the committee. National Grocers, they came and they said, "This is good legislation." Business people, are they our natural allies? Madam Speaker, I ask you. You know this. No, they're not. Are they the friends of the Conservatives, the very people who are criticizing this legislation? Yes, they are.

This is not legislation that prohibits anybody from gaining access to any job; this is legislation that opens doors. This is not intended to close doors. I think when we come down off our clouds, the Conservatives come down off their blue cloud, the Liberals come down off their red cloud and we come down off our green cloud and get our feet soundly on this planet, on this Earth, and we talk to business people out there, you will find that none of them will fear this legislation. They will welcome it, because it's good for business, because it opens doors; it doesn't close doors.

It's such difficult legislation to write. What this is is a reminder to each and every one of us, hopefully every day of our lives, that certain people in our society have been disadvantaged for so long. What it does is it reminds us that we all need to pull up our socks, to try to do something to improve some difficult situations.

I thank you very much for having allowed me the opportunity to put my comments on the record.

Mr Malkowski: I'm very pleased to be able to rise in my place today to join the debate on the time allocation that is before us. I want to tell you something and I want to talk a little bit from my heart, talk a little bit from my own personal experience and what I've gone through and a bit about the public process that we went through last summer and the people who came before us. A lot of those were people who are marginalized, people who are truly oppressed, those being women, aboriginals, disabled people and visible minorities; all these groups who came forward to us. We know these people worked very hard and came forward sincerely and honestly with recommendations, with ideas and with feedback to us on the legislation.

What I couldn't believe, though, and what I saw throughout those consultation periods were the unacceptable theatrics that were used by members of the opposition, both the Liberals and the Conservatives, whose strategy was to delay and to upset the apple cart and to derail this legislation because they are friends with the right wing, the big media out there and some of the larger corporations that don't want to see this happen.

They are trying very hard to create an atmosphere out there against employment equity, and that was really disappointing to me. That is their intention; they want to continue with the status quo. They don't think this is good, and I couldn't believe what I saw. I expected better of them. This was repeated throughout the hearings.

We want to see the systemic discrimination eliminated, and members of the opposition continued to ask questions and to attack some of our presenters, and the object was to stall and to cause the public to lose confidence in this bill. I would say they are presenting wrong information, being fed of course by whoever it is they get their information from in the opposition, but the whole point was to cause disruption and upset among the public and among our witnesses.

So that is why we are bringing forward time allocation. This is very important to bring forward productive, good employment equity for the citizens of Ontario. I want to say to the members opposite, you better think twice about your role and think about your own family members. I'm sure some of you have disabled people in your families. I know you have women in your families. Think about some of your friends who may come from visible minorities. Think about some of those people.

I also want to say to you, you're only an accident away from becoming disabled yourselves, you know, and perhaps this legislation may go a long way in helping you some day. So you may want to wake up to see that employment equity is for all of us. It's for all the people who live in this province.

I wish to say that this employment equity legislation is very important. It's going to go a long way to holistically resolving some of the problems that have systemically been presented to us by those members of the target groups. Ontario is a place for everyone, not just for a few élite.

We want to make sure that we bring people forward, that barrier removal really happens so that people in wheelchairs -- or whatever obstacles face a person, that those obstacles come down. For example, when you put in a wheelchair ramp, movers and people with strollers use those things. Captioning for deaf people is used by people who are using English as a second language. Young people, as they watch TV, can read along. There are many benefits to some of the technical devices that we see for disabled people that go wider than just a specific population.

This legislation is to stop the unnecessary discrimination that's out there, to give people that first chance. I wish that members opposite would stop with their tactics to upset the apple cart and to create further misconception.

I just want to tell you that my actual first work experience anywhere in a total hearing environment or world was here, as a member of provincial Parliament representing the good people of East York. It's my first opportunity to really participate in a hearing world. I'm very proud, and I'm very proud of the people who elected me to give me this chance. They obviously, by electing me, are saying yes to employment equity to give people that chance they need. That's why I support this legislation and I know that I pass on this message to all members here in this House. I would hope that you would wake up and realize that some day this may help you.

To the members opposite in both the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party, quit trying to confuse people and scare people and create an atmosphere against employment equity, because it does a disservice to the larger society. Some day you may become disabled yourself. You never know what's going to happen in the future. I would hope that for those disabled kids who are coming up through the system today, this will give them hope to really participate fully in society, and that the people of East York, by electing me, are sending a message. They sent a message to Queen's Park and I want you to realize that this is going to go a long way to contributing to a fuller society.

1750

The Acting Speaker: Further debate, the member for Durham East.

Interjection: Go give 'em hell, Gordon.

Mr Mills: No, I'm going to be very rational. I'm very pleased to be here this afternoon and stand to debate this. I was a member of the justice committee and I spent the 25 days and the 92 hours on this bill. I watched the antics of the opposition members with their stupidity, with their asking questions to delay the time. It was a disgrace.

But Madam Speaker, I just want to talk to you. I want to start off that I came to Canada in the 1950s. You can tell by my accent that I've got a little bit better since I've been here, but I can tell you I can speak to discrimination at first hand way back in the 1950s when I came. I tried to join the Ontario Provincial Police. I went into the police station in Pembroke and the guy said to me, "What party do you belong to?" I said, "What do you mean, what party?" He said, "Well, you know, you've got to belong to the Big Blue Machine, and what have you got on your hands?" I said, "I haven't got no rings," and he said, "Well, it'll help." I mean, talk about discrimination; they're the creators of it.

Now I want to talk about the people who came before that commission. I can tell you that it was a most moving experience that I've ever experienced in my life. I went back to my riding and I've got some people there who phoned me up and wrote me the most awful letters and said to me: "You shouldn't support this. It's terrible. It's reverse discrimination and everything else." I said to him: "You've missed something of vital importance in this discussion. You should have been there. You should have been in the committee, sitting in the chair beside me and seeing those people come in," and it was most moving.

I remember the fellow from Afghanistan. He came in, he was full of nerves, he was shaking like a leaf and he said --

Interjection.

Mr Mills: You were there. The member for St George-St David was there. He knows, and I'm standing in my place to tell you it exactly as it happened.

The gentleman from Afghanistan, he came in and he was shaking with nerves and he said almost apologetically, "I'm not used to talking publicly." I remember the committee members said words to the effect of: "Well, don't feel intimidated; just go ahead and be yourself," and we tried to make him comfortable. That gentleman sat there and he told us a litany of what's happened to him since he came to Canada. This gentleman was an architect. "The doors are shut out, " and he said, "I go home at night and my children, they look at me and they say, 'Dad, why are you driving a taxi?'" He said, "I felt terrible facing my own children about this."

I remember the woman of colour who appeared before us and she gave us a litany of all the jobs that she applied for.

Interjection.

The Acting Chair: Order. Would the member for St George-St David --

Mr Mills: I can tell you, Madam Speaker, she said --

Interjection.

The Acting Chair: Order. The member for Durham East has the floor.

Mr Mills: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. He lost control in this House and I wish he would try, because basically he's a nice fellow, but I wish he would control himself.

I remember this woman of colour who came in. She too was so nervous and she broke out into a sweat. I could see it. She said, "I'm not used to being here." So I said to her, "If it's any help to you, I can understand discrimination because I came here; I'm an immigrant too," to try to make her comfortable. She said she went for one job and the people said to her, "You know, like, we're looking for someone with a harmonious voice, you see." So I said, "Crumbs. What do you mean?" She said, "Well, I've got an accent." So I said, "Well, I guess I haven't got a harmonious voice either."

Then this other gentleman came before us. He was from Peterborough. I've never seen a more passionate demand of a legislative committee, a more passionate demand that he be listened to, that he be given the opportunity.

These people don't want everyone pushed away from the table. They want a space at the table to speak. That's what they wanted. They said time and time again: "We don't want to be treated special. We don't want to jump over the white male. We don't want any special consideration. We want to be considered on our merit." That's the problem. Nobody wants to give them space to be heard.

Then there was this other gentleman who came.

Mr Murphy: I agree with that. It should be based on merit.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Would members come to order.

Mr Mills: "I've gone all around this province," he said, "trying to get jobs, and I can't get any." This fellow was an engineer. Can you believe it? He said: "They want Canadian experience. How on earth can I get Canadian experience? Give me the opportunity. Open that door a little bit. I do not want to trample over white people. I just want that opportunity."

The passion that these people had when they appeared before us: I only wish that everybody out in Ontario who somehow is hung up and sees this as a white-male-dominated society that's losing their place in society could have been there.

I have a granddaughter who's 18 years old, just coming 18. She is absolutely infuriated when the member, who's not here now, goes crackers. He says all kinds of things that make me very angry and then he walks out the door. So I say to him, my granddaughter -- white, Anglo-Saxon -- is absolutely infuriated at the suggestion that she can't compete in this province of Ontario. She's absolutely infuriated with that suggestion, and this is an 18-year-old girl who's growing up in this wonderful province of ours.

The big businesses on side -- General Foods was there; Sears was there -- are all buying into this.

I've got one minute, 20 seconds left, and in deference to my colleague the member for Yorkview I'm going to sit down, because I get so wrought up with this passionate argument that people do need a place at the table.

Mr Mammoliti: One day in my office in Yorkview, a black woman came into my office and talked about how frustrated she was in terms of getting promoted. She worked with one of the ministries for about 18 years. In 18 years, she'd applied and applied and applied, but had never been promoted. They laid off, and they laid her off; she was one of them who got laid off. Others got promoted. She came to my office and asked why.

I wrote a simple letter that asked for the questions and any interviews she's been involved in, and the successful candidates who got those positions. Within a week, that person was offered a position in the ministry. My question is, why? Why did it take an MPP to write a letter and ask appropriate questions?

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Mammoliti: Why did she get offered a position a week after an MPP had asked? There is a problem out there, and I think this is one step --

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Mr Charlton has moved the resolution standing in his name. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is a 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1800 to 1815.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would all members take their seats. If members would take their seats, we may proceed.

Mr Charlton has moved the resolution standing in his name. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Haslam, Hope, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Conway, Cunningham, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harris, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, Morin, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Offer, Poirier, Poole, Runciman, Ruprecht, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 59, the nays being 33, I declare the motion carried.

It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10.

The House adjourned at 1819.

1 décembre 1993