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

June 16, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L081 - Thu 16 Jun 1988 / Jeu 16 jun 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

DEAF PERSONS’ RIGHTS ACT

GUN REPLICA SALE PROHIBITION ACT

DEAF PERSONS’ RIGHTS ACT

GUN REPLICA SALE PROHIBITION ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ EXPENDITURES

SEXUAL ASSAULT

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LABOUR DISPUTE

CARAVAN

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LABOUR DISPUTES

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY SENIOR GAMES

LOTTERY TICKET FRANCHISES

MOTION ON SOUTH AFRICA

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PARALEGALS

RESPONSES

PARALEGALS

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY SPECULATION

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE BARRIERS

ONTARIO HYDRO

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

CONDOMINIUM REGISTRATION

HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY

MASSEY COMBINES CORP.

ROAD CULVERTS

HOME CARE

LABOUR DISPUTE

AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES

PHOSPHATE DEPOSITS

OMAF NEWS

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CUSTODY OF CHILDREN

MINIMUM WAGE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATUS OF BILL PR49

HOUSE SITTING

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TAX ACT

CHARLOTTE ELEANOR ENGLEHART HOSPITAL ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 am.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

DEAF PERSONS’ RIGHTS ACT

Mrs. Stoner moved second reading of Bill 143,

An Act to provide for Certain Rights for Deaf Persons.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make her presentation, of which she may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mrs. Stoner: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on private members’ Bill 143. This legislation would prevent discrimination against deaf people accompanied by hearing-ear dogs. I first became aware of hearing-ear dogs and the valuable role they play in the lives of many deaf people when I met Jill Johnson of Ajax. Jill has a hearing-ear dog, Toby.

Members may recall that I introduced Jill and Toby to the Legislature in February, along with Jackie Harbour of the Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada and Corky, another hearing-ear dog, who almost jumped down into the Legislature. It was through my association with Jill that I found out about Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada and their need for legislation to be enacted to guarantee access for hearing-ear dogs. I decided that perhaps I could do something about this. I am asking members today to support this private members’ bill.

This legislation will give deaf people with hearing-ear dogs the same rights of access as those that are now enjoyed by blind people under the Blind Persons’ Rights Act. My bill is patterned after that act. The purpose of Bill 143 is to ensure that deaf people are not discriminated against because they are accompanied by hearing-ear dogs. These dogs are guide dogs and should be treated the same as seeing-eye dogs.

If this bill is passed, it will be against the law to deny any person accommodation, services or facilities available in any public place because he or she is a deaf person accompanied by a guide dog. In addition, no one would be able to deny a deaf person with a hearing-ear dog occupancy of any self-contained dwelling unit.

Under the legislation, the Attorney General or a designated officer can, upon request, issue to a deaf person an identification card. This card would identify a deaf person and his guide dog. The card would be proof that the deaf person and his dog are qualified for the purposes of the legislation.

The bill also contains a clause that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the qualifications for guide dogs. I would anticipate that those would be along the same lines as the Blind Persons’ Rights Act, which recognizes dogs that are trained at particular facilities as seeing-eye dogs. Contravention of this act would carry a fine of $1,000.

In approving this bill, the Legislature can break new ground in Canada and set a trend for recognizing the rights of deaf people in this country. There is currently no province in Canada which protects the rights of deaf people to be accompanied by guide dogs. This is the case, even though there are at least three training programs for hearing-ear dogs: Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada, Service Dogs of Canada and the Western Canada Handi and Hearing Ear Dog Society.

I thank Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada for its support and its words of encouragement. I know from my conversations with Jill that having Toby has enhanced her already active life and he has been of great assistance to her.

In a letter to a local newspaper last December, Jill wrote about how much Toby has helped her. She wrote that Toby is very valuable in providing independence, not just for her but for her family and her friends as well. Before getting Toby, Jill had to rely on other people to alert her to sounds, and if there was no one around, the sounds went undetected. But now Toby alerts her to various sounds so that she can live more independently.

As I have mentioned, none of the provinces in Canada has legislation which recognizes the rights of deaf people to be accompanied by their dogs. In contrast to that situation, those rights are almost universal in the United States. There are currently 48 states with some form of hearing-ear dog legislation. The two states which have not passed such laws are Alaska and Hawaii.

I would like to discuss briefly the existing laws in the states of New York, Michigan, California, Pennsylvania and Illinois. In New York, the rights of hearing-impaired people to be accompanied by a hearing-ear dog became part of the laws of that state in 1979.

The civil rights aspect of the New York law provides that deaf people shall not be denied admittance to and/or the equal use and enjoyment of any public facility solely because they are accompanied by a guide dog. “Public facility” is defined broadly to include public and private transportation, public and private housing, food service, educational facilities and theatres. Under that law, deaf people with hearing-ear dogs cannot be discriminated against in employment and various other matters.

In Michigan, the laws were amended in 1980 to provide that no one shall refuse admittance to a deaf person to various public and private facilities if that person is accompanied by a hearing-ear dog. The law had previously been applied to blind people with their guide dogs.

In California, the law respecting hearing-ear dogs came into effect in 1979. It was an amendment to the civil code. The law provides that a deaf person or persons whose hearing is impaired shall have the right to be accompanied by a guide dog, signal dog or service dog. Under this law, however, denial of rental accommodation to physically disabled persons with dogs is permitted where other tenants are also denied dogs.

In 1982, Pennsylvania’s human relations legislation was amended to protect deaf people accompanied by guide dogs against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation.

The state of Illinois extended human rights protection to hearing-impaired people with guide dogs in 1982. The following year, this protection was further extended to physically handicapped people with support dogs. The Illinois law protects the rights of blind, deaf or physically disabled people accompanied by guide hearing or support dogs to use and have access to public facilities, transportation and accommodation. Illinois law also makes it an offence to refuse to sell or rent property to a person because he or she has a guide hearing or support dog.

The examples of American law which I have outlined are very similar to the one I am proposing for this province. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the work being done by Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada in training dogs to alert hearing-impaired people to sounds such as a baby crying, an alarm clock, a smoke detector, a malfunctioning car; and a telephone, which deaf people can now use with the TTY printing and Bell Canada relay systems. As hearing people we take all these sounds for granted, but that is not the case for a deaf person.

To date, Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada, which is based near Ancaster, has placed 41 dogs throughout Canada, with the majority going to hearing-impaired people in Ontario. The organization has 16 people on its waiting list and nine dogs that are currently being trained. Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada is a nonprofit, charitable organization which has been training dogs to assist the deaf since 1979. It costs about $3,000 to train a hearing-ear dog. All of the dogs are donated to the program. Not just any dog is cut out to be a hearing-ear dog.

The dog has to meet a number of requirements, including having a friendly and outgoing personality, being of small to medium size and being healthy. The dog must also be under one year old.

The dogs are donated to the program and many of them come from the humane societies. Training begins with basic obedience and all commands are taught in both sign language and verbally. Each of the hearing-ear dogs is trained to match the specific lifestyle of the deaf person with whom the dog will be placed. For example, if a deaf person is a woman with a young baby, the dog is trained to alert its mistress to the sound of that baby crying; or if a hearing-impaired person lives in an apartment, the dog is trained to respond to the apartment intercom.

When a young dog begins training, it is placed in a foster home for several months. This way, the dog can learn how to interact in a family situation. Once the dog is ready for placement, the trainer accompanies him or her to the new home. During this placement period, which lasts about a week, the trainer helps to get the dog acquainted with this new home. It also gives the dog and the owner a chance to learn to work together and get to know each other. According to Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada, it is very important that the personalities of the dog and its new owner complement each other.

It is interesting to note that the deaf person does not have to pay for the hearing-ear dog. As a nonprofit organization, Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada relies on donations to support its program. Hearing-ear dogs can be identified by their special orange collar and orange lead. Deafness is often referred to as the invisible handicap. You cannot see hearing impairment, but you can see that orange collar and orange lead. It is hoped that soon that signal will be as readily recognized as is the harness on a seeing-eye dog.

The hearing-ear dogs’ program has the support of such agencies and organizations as Lions clubs, the Canadian Hearing Society and the Oshawa Deaf Centre. I know of a number of companies in the transportation sector which also recognize the importance of these guide dogs. For example, on Via Rail passenger trains, seeing-eye and hearing-ear dogs are the only pets allowed in the passenger cars. Greyhound Bus Lines allows seeing-eye and hearing-ear dogs on its buses. On GO Transit trains and buses, blind and deaf people can be accompanied by their guide dogs.

The deaf are probably the most socially isolated of all of our handicapped groups in Canada. Hearing-ear dogs have opened up a whole new world for many deaf people. I feel this legislation is the logical step in recognizing these dogs and their tremendous importance. No deaf person should be denied access to any public place or accommodation because he is accompanied by a hearing-ear dog. I want to make sure there is absolutely no question about rights of access for deaf people with their dogs. It is absolutely essential, in my view, that these rights should be recognized in legislation.

At no time should a hearing-impaired person be discriminated against because he is accompanied by his dog. I want to make sure that deaf people with hearing-ear dogs have unrestricted access to public transportation, that they can get accommodation even though they have a dog, go out for a meal in a restaurant accompanied by his dog and have no fear of being turned away from any door.

These dogs are not pets. They are working dogs. They are an extension of the deaf person himself. That person relies on that dog. I urge all members to support this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on it, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate? Le député de Scarborough Ouest.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Merci, monsieur le Président. Yes, I would like to participate and support this piece of legislation and make a few comments on it if I might.

It is interesting that in this session and this spring we have had two pieces of private members’ business, my resolution on education for the deaf and now this member’s action in terms of certain rights of the deaf in terms of hearing-ear dogs.

I think this symbolizes a major change which has taken place recently with the deaf community. It has been a very invisible community, as the member has said, for decades, in part because of the nature of the public policy which had been prevalent towards the deaf, some of which I think was quite restrictive. Recent events in the United States, culminating in the takeover of Gallaudet University by the deaf students and then the assertion that they wanted their own deaf president and board and control, a deaf board of governors, has changed an awful lot of things. This community in Ontario, finally, is speaking up in a way which is forcing legislators to listen.

What I would like to say about this legislation is that it is so self-evidently a good piece of legislation and should so self-evidently be part of existing laws in this province that I would expect there to be unanimity in the House in terms of support for it. It is amazing to think that we have not done this up to this point,

whereas, as the member has said, all but a couple of states in the US have actually enacted this kind of legislation.

I hope the government will not allow this piece of legislation to remain in the kind of no man’s land, if I can put it that way, that a lot of private members’ legislation ends up in, but instead will indicate that it wishes to adopt this itself and to bring it forward as government legislation as quickly as possible. I am sure it could be passed through this House in no time at all.

Barring that taking place, I hope this legislation will be sent out to a committee after we approve it, as I am sure we will this morning, and that the committee can hold some brief hearings on the matter and bring it back to the government for it to bring forward for third reading. It would be a lovely precedent to have a private member’s bill come before the House in that private member’s name for third reading and passage and then even possibly proclamation. It would be almost an unheard of event in the way things work here, and it might be a very nice gesture if we can do it speedily.

Government legislation could clearly be brought in even more quickly if that were seen to be the road that should be taken.

It is possibly true that the Human Rights Code at the moment would guarantee to a deaf person the right to use a hearing-ear dog and to have rights to access to accommodation and to not be denied work on the basis of that and possibly to have access to other kinds of private buildings. However, it is not sufficiently clear, in my view, that this would necessarily be the case. The deaf person would have to be able to show that in fact that was a limitation on his access. An onus is now placed on that deaf person that is not placed on a blind person in the province. As the member for Durham West (Mrs.

Stoner) said, it is the kind of thing that we have taken for granted as a specific right for the blind for many years.

It is also important to understand that there are people out there who are still not as sensitive to the rights of disabled people as are, I presume, all members of this House. On a regular basis, we see people driving into parking spots that are set aside for the disabled and using those spots. I have in my own riding a government-run building where the superintendent continually uses one of only a couple of disabled parking spots that are available, even though he himself is not disabled.

There is now an awful lot of talk about increasing the fines for that and making it a much more serious offence, because we have to get the message through to people that these kinds of rules are put in to provide access and they are crucial to the participation of disabled people. So I think it is only right that we have this piece of legislation which specifically says that access to accommodation and private and public services in Ontario should not be denied anybody just because he happens to have a dog to assist him to operate as fully as possible within our society.

I think it is a very positive thing that has been done. I think the kinds of fines that are involved are probably sufficient at this stage, but it might be a matter of some discussion by the ministry as to whether or not the fines for the exclusion of both the blind and the deaf may be increased at this stage, because they have not been changed, in terms of the blind, for a number of years now. That would be a very small matter and an administrative concern that could be dealt with.

The change that this has meant for a lot of people is very profound. I just ask members to think about some of the things that these dogs are able to do for people. If there is a fire in a high-rise building and a hearing-impaired person is living high up in that building, which is often quite possible because the hearing-impaired are not, as are wheelchair-bound people, often given any kind of preference in terms of ground-floor accommodation, that person does not necessarily hear the alarm. Deaf people can therefore be the last to come out of their rooms and are at greater jeopardy than others.

The dog is a great warning device for those people just in terms of the security of their lives. In terms of the practical applications on a day-to-day basis and letting people know that somebody is at the door or that the phone is ringing or that other kinds of sounds that we would all be alert to are taking place, again, the dog can provide that person with an ability to operate which more closely approximates that of a hearing person than he would otherwise have.

It is my hope that the government will see this as the ground-breaking legislation it is, filling a gap, which in my view is exactly what private members’ legislation should do. It should be for a private member to point out something which is presently missing in our government legislation packages or which is wanting a direction for movement, as I was trying to do on the deaf education matter.

Appropriately, the member has found that spot, something which, surprisingly in 1988, is not handled. She said: “This is the very simple way of doing it. Here’s your model of legislation. It fits very much what’s been done in the United States. It would be a model for the rest of Canada, because nobody is doing it as yet.”

Hopefully, the government will assume its responsibility quickly and will take on this bill, as I said. If not, then it should be referred out, probably to the standing committee on administration of justice, I think, because of the responsibilities of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) here. The standing committee on social development would be delighted to deal with this kind of bill as well. I see the chairman nodding his head, saying we would welcome that.

Then we could deal with it in as quick a fashion as possible, get it back to the House and allow the government to break new ground itself and let a private member actually see her own work proclaimed in law, which would be a wonderful thing to see.

It is my pleasure on behalf of our party to say that I doubt that there will be a member in the House who will rise to vote against this bill. We should therefore recognize the will of this Legislature as quickly as possible and fill this gap. I thank the member for moving it.

Mrs. Cunningham: I would like to comment on Bill 143,

An Act to provide for Certain Rights for Deaf Persons, and to congratulate the member for Durham West on her insight and her determination in presenting this bill to the House today.

Unlike most of us, many people across this province suffer from blindness and deafness, disabilities which make even the simplest daily activities such as crossing the street, answering the telephone or waking up in time for work a great personal challenge. These are the real challenges for our special citizens that we often take for granted.

Deaf people use hearing-ear dogs for many of the same things that blind people use dogs for. Dogs alert the deaf to various warning sounds such as smoke detectors, alarm clocks, telephones and children who are crying. A deaf person is able to obtain a dog through the Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada or other related organizations. Each dog is trained for the individual person based on individual needs.

Parents of small children could train their dog to alert them to the sound of a child’s crying. Since many deaf people are dependent on these dogs, the dogs must accompany them in public places such as washrooms, buses and planes. This causes some problems for both blind and deaf persons when other members of society question their rights or are unaware of their rights as legislated.

At present, blind people with seeing-eye dogs have legal protection from discrimination under the Blind Persons’ Rights Act. However, this has not eliminated instances of discrimination against blind people with seeing-eye dogs who have entered public places with their dogs.

After looking into this matter and speaking with staff of the London Centre of the Deaf, we were made aware of some cases, especially one in Metropolitan Toronto, where a blind person accompanied by a dog was denied access to a taxicab. Although the case was resolved and the taxi driver was charged with violating the act, this demonstrates the lack of awareness of many people in the province as to the rights of the blind in Ontario. In fact, we understand that some blind people carry the legislation with them personally in the event that they will not be allowed into a public place with their dog.

Thus, it is evident that deaf persons in this province are indeed in a very vulnerable position at present. If blind people who are protected by law find it necessary to carry the legislation with them, how then do deaf persons with a hearing-ear dog protect themselves against discrimination when there is no legal protection?

Bill 143 seeks to give the same legal protection to another equally disadvantaged group of people in this province, the deaf. For this reason I support this bill and offer my sincere congratulations to the member from Durham West for bringing this to our attention.

Mr. Fleet: I am pleased to speak in favour of this bill and I congratulate the member for Durham West on her initiative in this area. A hearing-ear dog may seem strange to most people. An initial reaction might well be, “Why would a deaf person need that?” I think that such a reaction typifies what we so often take for granted, which is our health and in particular our reliance on our hearing.

Our sophisticated means of communication in this society are very frequently sound-oriented. We use the telephone repeatedly each day, without ever stopping to contemplate, “If I could not use the phone or hear someone else calling me, how would I convey my message or hear the latest news?” As for hearing the commercial news, naturally, radio is nonexistent and even television is extremely restricted. As members think about how they would cope without sound, they should consider also what that deprivation really means. The result is isolation and literally a different environment in which to learn the nature of our world.

I do not profess to have expertise about the subject of deafness, but as a lawyer practising in Metropolitan Toronto and region, I certainly had an opportunity to act for a fairly large number of deaf clients and I learned some of the hurdles that they experience and some of the culture of the deaf world. Many of my deaf clients were surprisingly poor readers, which made it increasingly difficult to communicate with them. That may partly be the fault of our educational system.

What may not seem obvious is that to simply function in everyday life, a deaf person essentially has to be bilingual. He or she must learn sign language and commonly lipreading, and also a completely separate language of the written word. They are not the same, and it represents an additional challenge or hurdle for deaf people.

Sign language, as I experienced dealing with it, has a methodology and nuances that are all its own. In fact, I was surprised when I learned that there are several different sign languages, which tends to complicate life even more for deaf people if they were hoping to travel to other countries.

Speaking to a deaf person, even with the help of a sign language interpreter, is not the same as simultaneous translation with other languages. To communicate effectively, I found it was best to use simple sentences and precise words and to break down my own speech pattern to express only one concept at a time and to do that in a logical sequence. It is rather tricky, I found, and I had to concentrate particularly carefully to make sure that I was communicating well, and supposedly I was the person without the disability. Think how much harder it has to be for deaf people to cope with.

Sign language is a different way of communicating, only slightly different but enough to be significant, and it affects the way, I think, deaf people perceive the world, particularly people who have been deaf from birth. In many families where there is only one deaf person, there is only one other member of the family who learns sign language. I cannot really explain that logically. It is just something that seems to happen quite commonly and, unintentionally and unconsciously, the hearing members of the family tend to rely on one person to communicate directly to the deaf person. The deaf person, as a result, is placed at a double disadvantage.

The first aspect is that he or she is in a position of dependency with that one link to the rest of the family. The second aspect is that there is a relative deprivation from at least some of the ordinary experiences of family life, the interaction with other family members. Thus, the way in which deafness can shape and isolate an individual can be quite subtle. The cumulative effect of the physical disability and an insensitive society can be devastating.

In terms of my experience as a lawyer, I was also rather shocked to learn that, historically in the courts deaf people, particularly those who are deaf and dumb, were categorized as being insane. That was the kind of orientation that we had, amazingly not so long ago. Even now, the assistance that is provided in courts for sign language interpreters is largely dependent on volunteers or people who are paid but, frankly, not overly well paid.

I particularly would like to take this opportunity to praise the efforts of the volunteers and the staff at the Bob Rumball Centre for the Deaf in Scarborough and of the Canadian Hearing Society. Certainly, the courts could not operate properly without them. We have come some distance at least, because now the Charter of Rights contains an express provision ensuring a right of deaf people to have a sign language interpreter in court. It surely behooves all of us to make an extra effort to break down the walls of isolation that deafness can create and that we can exacerbate if we do not pay attention.

Some of the education, I submit, must be directly to the families of deaf persons so that they too can cope better and understand better. We need to focus more of our ingenuity and our material resources on helping deaf people directly. There are marvellous advances being made now: TTY machines which adapt telephones for the deaf. They are very easy to learn. Even somebody like myself who does not have any particular keyboard skills can operate a machine quite easily and quite effectively to communicate and to break down that isolation.

Now we have a wonderful development with the hearing-ear dog program to accomplish the many objectives that the member for Durham West and other members have referred to. I think, quite clearly, deaf people do not need to be dependants in our society. They do need an investment, as we all do, in order to function and to produce at maximum capacity.

This bill is one small, but particularly meaningful, contribution to help people to help themselves, and I think it helps all of us in the long run. In addition to urging all members of this House to support this bill, I agree with comments made earlier that it is appropriate for this government to adopt the bill so that it will receive third reading and pass into law.

I am pleased to note also that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) is here today. Whether it is his responsibility or the Attorney General’s I am not sure, but I certainly trust the minister present today will give consideration to this matter.

Once again, I urge everyone here to support this bill and I would like to close by noting that, on this issue, we have no excuses that we are deaf to the needs of people in our society.

Mr. Hampton: I want to indicate immediately my support for this bill and the support of the other members of my party and my colleagues here with me today.

We should never underestimate the difficulties that disabled people have to overcome in our society. The fact that we are too often generally unaware of the nature and the extent of the difficulties, I think, indicates the first problem. We just generally are not aware; I think this is particularly the case and the member has indicated this in terms of her bill. There are many obstacles which deaf people have to overcome and this is one very important, though, as has been indicated, only one initial way that we can recognize the difficulty and attempt to do something about it.

As someone who was formerly a teacher in the elementary schools here in Toronto and also in the northwestern part of the province, I have encountered, to a certain extent, the difficulties which many young deaf people have to overcome. They are difficulties not just of a physical kind, but difficulties in terms of social development and educational development and, finally, difficulties in terms of finding an occupation and becoming a self-supporting and a self-actualizing member of society. I say again that we should not underestimate those difficulties.

Our education system has come a long way in terms of dealing with some of these problems; but again, we as a society, must progress in terms of recognizing the difficulty that has to be overcome every day, the difficulty that has to be overcome in doing what many of us would regard as the most menial tasks or the most everyday activities.

The difficulties that deaf people encounter in attempting many of these things are quite formidable and I and my colleagues recognize that the resolution which the member for Durham West has placed before the House today would go a very long way toward assisting deaf people in dealing with one of the problems which many of us are not even aware of, or have not taken the time to even think about.

We commend the member for bringing this bill before the House. I commend her and it is my intention to support this bill. I say again, this is one that is worthy of the government’s consideration. Hopefully, the government will provide the assistance that is necessary to ensure that this bill becomes law in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Pollock: I want to join my colleague the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) and all other members in this House in paying tribute to the member for Durham West on her private member’s bill and assure her that I will be supporting it. I think the bill is straightforward and self-explanatory and I wish her every success in getting a third reading and royal assent.

I have to admit that when I first heard of this private member’s bill, I did not realize that there was such a thing as a hearing-ear dog. The first thought that came to my mind is the fact that they would have these dogs for protection. However, in checking into it I realized that these dogs are not only there for protection, they can also warn a person about the phone ringing, the doorbell ringing, the tea kettle boiling and various other things. I think the legislation is needed and once again, as I say, I support the member for Durham West for bringing it forward.

I think we also owe a debt of congratulations to those service clubs that donate their money for the training and the placement of these dogs, and to the Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada organization which undertakes the training of these particular dogs.

I was impressed with the comments from the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) when he said that there were two pieces of legislation that have already come before this House this season. I might point out -- and I was pleased to be able to make a statement in this House in regards to it -- that I received a letter from a young lady who goes to Sir James Whitney School in Belleville. Her name is Jenny and she wrote the letter to request assistance to buy a TDD phone. That is a telecommunication device for the deaf. These phones run somewhere between $250 and $550.

Apparently there is a program out there where, if you needed a hearing aid, you would get 75 per cent of the cost of that hearing aid paid for by the government.

Naturally, I was in support of her letter. I not only answered her letter, but also I thought maybe I could call her and talk to her on one of these special telephone device systems. Needless to say, I could not call her at her home, so I had to go through Sir James Whitney School. At one time Bell Telephone only had 20 of these special operators for the deaf. Now, because of the demand, they have up to 100 of these special operators. Anyway, I called the special Zenith line and the operator made contact with Jenny in Sir James Whitney School. I have to admit conversation is pretty slow through that procedure, but at least you can make contact with a person like that.

It was a real experience for me. As I say, I am in full support of this particular legislation and just hope that it gets speedy passage in this House.

I might mention too, to the member for Durham West, that I had a private member’s bill here once. It was to make the blue jay the provincial bird for Ontario. But as the member knows, and as some other members here know, the blue jay did not fly.

Mr. Wildman: It flew yesterday.

Mr. Pollock: Did it?

Mr. Wildman: It got to score yesterday.

Mr. Pollock: I see.

Anyway, I am sure this particular piece of legislation is far more important. I would still like to see the blue jay as the provincial bird for Ontario, but as I say, I wish the member every success with this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Matrundola: I would like to address my congratulations to the member for Durham West on Bill 143. Here, I believe, is a very good idea. I think it is something that is very important for deaf people.

Deaf people, like blind people, do need the protection of hearing-ear dogs because many times a person who is hard of hearing could be next to danger and the dog can certainly save the person’s life. This can apply to young people as well as senior citizens.

I think this is a beautiful idea. It is something that was long needed, and I certainly hope this bill is going to get a speedy passage and royal assent in the very near future because the lives of many people do depend on the help of well-trained dogs in this matter.

Having said so, once again I wish to congratulate the member and I hope the bill will get speedy passage in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate? If not, will the member for Durham West wish to wind down?

Mrs. Stoner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would indeed like to do that.

The first thing I would like to do is to thank my colleagues in the House for their support. I very deeply appreciate it.

The point the member for Scarborough West made about the possibilities that this private member’s bill could actually become law is something that I certainly hope is a prediction and will happen.

The point he made about sending it to committee, perhaps to review such questions as the increase of the fine from $1,000, is something I would support. I would in fact ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on social development for review.

I would like to thank the member for London North for her kind comments, particularly her awareness of the needs of the blind people and also the need to promote that in recognizing the needs of the deaf. In saying that, when she refers to the fact that the blind need sometimes to provide written proof of the legislation that they have, think of the deaf person who cannot explain verbally his situation. It is much more difficult for them to deal with the world in social interaction sometimes than it is for the blind.

The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) was very sensitive. His comments on and awareness of the world of the deaf, and particularly those who are deaf from birth, are very much appreciated. Their need to know several sign languages, to be able to read lips and to work through and evolve understanding of written languages is very difficult to achieve. His knowledge -- such as the fact that, historically, the deaf around the world have been categorized as insane in many cases, and in the most recent history treated as retarded, which in fact they were not -- and sensitivity are much appreciated.

The member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) is absolutely correct that we should never underestimate the obstacles in the paths of the disabled in our community, and his points on education and social interaction are particularly well taken.

The member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) was right about the fact that these dogs are not well understood and his appreciation for the fact that they are much more than simply protection. I second his statement of an appreciation of gratitude to those volunteers from the Hearing Ear Dog Society of Canada and from all of those other volunteer organizations which have made this program and other programs for the deaf possible.

The member for Willowdale (Mr. Matrundola), I would also thank for his very kind comments and understanding of the situation that we are dealing with.

It is important that we do not discriminate against the hearing impaired in our society, that there never ever be a situation where the hearing impaired with their guide dogs are denied the right to rent an apartment or live in a certain place, or are prohibited from entering a restaurant or a theatre or any other facility.

There is no legislation in Canada at this point that will do what this bill does. I would hope that not only would it achieve the actuality of becoming law here in Ontario, but also that perhaps the other provinces would follow suit.

I would hope that the minister would support the bill and that ultimately the House would support it.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to be a member of this Legislature and to bring forward a bill like this. I thank you all, very, very much.

The Deputy Speaker: This concludes the debate.

GUN REPLICA SALE PROHIBITION ACT

Mr. Farnan moved second reading of Bill 145,

An Act to prohibit the Sale of Gun Replicas.

Mr. Farnan: I feel that this is an important piece of legislation that I place before the House today. It is a serious and real issue and, as we have tragically discovered, it is a life-and-death issue.

I would like, first of all, to quote from an editorial in the Brantford Expositor on October 28, 1987. It is referring to toy guns.

“Their use can be just as deadly as the real thing, as is now all too evident. When a robber points a gun at a bank teller, a variety store clerk, or in this sad case a police officer, it doesn’t matter whether it is a real weapon or a toy, the victim feels equally at risk.

“From the point of view of the person holding the gun, it doesn’t matter whether it is a toy or a replica, the intent is the same: to intimidate and frighten his victim.

“Toy or not, the replicas can be used like real guns and should therefore be treated like real guns.”

This legislation responds to the tragic incident in Ontario last October, in Brantford, when during the investigation of alleged assault a Brantford man drew what appeared to be a Colt Python .357 Magnum revolver on a police officer after being told he was under arrest. When the man refused to drop the weapon, he was shot in the chest and subsequently died of his injuries. Later, it was discovered that the gun was a toy, a replica, and not the real thing at all.

Robert Monument, a firearms expert at the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto told the inquest into this case that the copy was a lot lighter than the real gun but had the same colour, shape, trigger, and barrel length. He said the fake gun, which was sold with a red plug in its barrel is indistinguishable from a real gun when the plug is removed.

The coroner’s jury, investigating the death, recommended that manufacture and sale of realistic handgun replicas should be banned in this province.

At the time of the inquest, Brantford police department officials said it was important for the province to pursue the recommendation in order to prevent any further tragedies.

Twenty-six days after the shooting, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) said he would consider the coroner’s jury recommendation to ban replica guns.

In another incident that took place in Cambridge, a police officer actually drew a gun when a teenager was wielding an imitation gun in a public amusement area. There was the potential for similarly tragic consequences, but fortunately none occurred. And this incident took place in the last six months. These are just two incidents. Hundreds across North America and Canada have already been documented.

There is growing concern among the public, the police fraternity and municipalities. Initiated by Alderman Woods, a Cambridge alderman, Cambridge city council passed a motion dealing with this issue and in its final form the motion read, “We, Cambridge council, petition the province of Ontario to enact legislation to regulate and/or prohibit the sale of toy guns, which are replicas of real weapons.” This resolution was forwarded to municipalities across the province with populations of 50,000 or more.

Support and endorsement of many Ontario municipalities, including the county of Oxford, Brampton city council, city of Guelph, Oakville town council, the county of Lambton, the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, the city of Etobicoke, the children’s services and education committee of Simcoe county and many others endorsed the resolution of the Cambridge council. Those councils that did not actually endorse the resolution forwarded the motion of the Cambridge council to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for their support.

Police officers and police associations across Canada and North America are naturally concerned about this issue. The deputy chief, Charles Clare of Cambridge, had this to say:

“Imitation weapons sold today as toys are so realistic looking that until you handle them you cannot tell the difference. I fully support this type of legislation. It has been talked about in police circles for some time and certainly we would welcome any type of law, whether it be a bylaw, through the province or through federal legislation, that would ban the sale of imitation weapons.”

According to Joe Ledermann, the president of the Waterloo Police Association:

“In 1988, Ontario police officers will face more than an estimated 100 similar incidents involving imitation firearms or guns of this type. We have run into some problems locally,” said Mr. Ledermann. “Little toy guns are just fine,” he said, “as long as they look like little toy guns. Manufacturers should make them look like little toy guns by making them in different colours and without all the working parts of a real firearm. When they are exact duplicates of actual firearms or can be mistaken as such, and are readily available to the public, that is when the problem arises.”

I would like to remind the members of the House of the stress under which police officers carry out their duties. We cannot afford to be insensitive to this very real danger in which our police officers must function. They are forced by the nature of their job to make life and death decisions. They have to presume that the weapon they are facing is real. They cannot jeopardize their own safety by second-guessing. They cannot go through mental gymnastics as to whether the gun is real or not real.

It is not just the victim whose life is at stake or the individual with the toy gun, it is that of the police officer for whom, in the case where a real gun is being used that split second may mean his own death.

Quoting again from the Brantford inquest, one of the police officers had this to say: “I thought I was going to get shot. I was scared to death.” There were two officers who went to the scene of the crime. “I was really scared, because I didn’t know which gun had gone off first,” said the second officer. That is just how real the situation is facing our police forces.

There is a real need to act. The issue has been debated at the municipal level and it is being passed between the provincial and federal jurisdictions. As we pass this issue up and down the ladder, instances occur. We have the police officer representative saying 100 cases in 1988; but that is not to include all those cases where toy guns are used in armed robbery where the individual carrying that gun has not come into face-to-face contact with a police officer, and the fear and intimidation that are caused to the individuals who are in the situation of being threatened by the individual carrying the toy gun.

There has been much discussion as to where this legislation appropriately belongs. My view, and the legal advice that I have received, supports dealing with the issue of toy replica guns in the manner outlined in the bill I have placed before the House.

To initiate and develop controls, I have placed the issue in the realm of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I have placed it in the realm of the sale of replica guns. It is the minister or his or her agent who will determine whether or not a particular gun can be described as a gun replica and also will issue the appropriate certificate which would allow a toy gun to be on sale. The bill will allow toy guns to be continued to be sold as long as, in the judgement of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, it does not closely resemble or cannot be reasonably mistaken for a firearm.

The bill allows for penalties to be imposed on those who would contravene the proposed Gun Replica Sale Prohibition Act.

There is a responsibility on us to deal with this issue, but there is a responsibility on society because it is an issue that all of society must be concerned about. I would like to stress that I believe the responsibility is on those stores which carry this type of gun. The type of gun that was used in the Brantford incident, the Magnum Commando toy gun, was readily available at K mart and Woolco stores in Brantford.

All stores, small and large, have a responsibility, with or without legislation I believe, to withdraw these types of replica guns from the shelves. Parents have a responsibility to think through the type of toys they are purchasing; and I think that responsible action on the part of stores and on the part of parents can go some way towards solving this problem. Certainly if the public did not buy the manufacturers would not produce and the stores would not sell. Unfortunately, the public buys, the manufacturers produce, the stores sell and the consequences are immense.

It comes back to all of us. We are in a position to do something that can reduce the risk of death, that can reduce the risk of severe injury to the person of individuals who might carry this toy gun in the circumstance of a robbery and also that can reduce the risk of death and injury to police officers who may be called out when indeed real guns may actually be in use.

I would ask for the support of members in all parties, on both sides of the House, for this legislation. There may be refinements that we could look at down the road, but I think the principle is intact. I think it falls suitably under the appropriate ministry and I think the effects of this legislation could be extremely beneficial. It could be a lead for the rest of Canada.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will reserve the rest of the time to wind up.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to start by saying that I strongly support the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) on Bill 145. I feel quite strongly about it because I had a tragic example in my own riding of a police officer who paid the ultimate price because he did not have those couple of seconds.

Bill 145 prohibits the sale of gun replicas, and the key phrase in the explanatory note says, “guns that might reasonably be mistaken for real guns in the commission of a crime.” I think that is the whole essence of the bill.

I would also like to make reference to the Globe and Mail

article of October 27, 1987. This will be repetitious of some of the comments made by the member for Cambridge, but it highlights the incident that I wish to bring to the attention of the House. This

article from the Globe and Mail pertains to the coroner’s jury:

“The coroner’s jury recommended that the sale of realistic toy handguns should be prohibited in Ontario.

“The inquest looked into the death of Hubert Corbett ... who was shot by Brantford police constable David Sloop on October 3, while he was pointing a realistic imitation of a revolver at the officer.”

In the hearing, Constable Sloop is quoted as saying, “I was really scared. I didn’t know which gun went off. I was afraid for my life.” The point is that he was concerned that he might be shot if he did not make the right decision within a matter of a few seconds.

The Hamilton Spectator of May 20 stated:

“The Brantford Police Commission appears to have hit a dead end in its efforts to have the manufacture and sale of replica handguns banned.

“The commission has received letters from both the federal and provincial governments saying no action will be taken on the request.”

Alderman Max Sherman, chairman of the police commission, is quoted as saying:

“I think it’s going to be lost.... Replica guns are a dangerous toy and as a result, people have been killed. It’s been proven in Brantford and elsewhere across the United States and Canada.

“Policemen have only a couple of seconds to react when confronted by a person with a gun and don’t have time to assess whether it’s real or fake.

“As far as the policeman is concerned, it is a real gun.... Unfortunately, the decision can be very tragic.”

It is tragic. It was tragic in the case in Brantford; it was tragic in the case in the small village of Arthur. We empower the police forces in Ontario to protect us from criminal assaults. If we expect their support and protection, then we, in turn, have an obligation to support them to perform their duties in the safest manner possible.

Some people will say, “How can a toy gun endanger a police officer?” Well, I submit the case that it could cost a police officer his life. As testimony in the coroner’s jury hearing in Brantford indicated, an individual was shot to death because a police officer feared for his life, and rightly so. Police officers, when confronted with an individual armed with a weapon, have only a few seconds to react. I would like to use the tragic example that occurred a few years ago in my riding. A young police officer investigating a break-in and arson late one night was confronted by an armed man.

This individual pointed a shotgun at the officer and, without hesitation, shot the officer at point-blank range. The blast from the shotgun tore the throat out of the police officer and killed him instantly.

That is tragic. Remember police Constable David Sloop saying that he feared for his life? When confronted by an individual with a weapon, how can one determine whether it is a fake or a real weapon? If one guesses wrong, it is all over. Should we place our police officers with the added dilemma of having to make that decision, a split-second decision whether a gun is real or not? If they guess wrong, they could be killed. In the Brantford case the individual with the imitation gun was killed.

If we pass Bill 145, it could be a major step towards resolving this problem. If it does nothing else than demonstrate to our police forces in Ontario that this Legislature is concerned for their safety and is totally committed to supporting their efforts to protect us, then it will be worth while. I would encourage the members to consider this aspect of protection and support to our police forces as a major argument in passing this legislation.

If the Attorney General feels that the legislation is not exactly as required, I would submit that the bill does not have to be called but can form the basis for a piece of legislation of his own that can achieve the same purpose. Pressure can be exerted on the federal government to follow through if federal legislation is needed.

But by not doing anything, we will not be supporting the police forces that we ask to protect us; we will be failing in our responsibilities. So I urge the members, even if they do not consider that the bill is a perfect piece of drafted legislation, to allow it to be passed. As I mentioned, it does not have to be called, but it can certainly form the basis for something that will achieve the same effects that our colleague the member for Cambridge has promoted.

Mr. Neumann: It is a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill. First of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Cambridge for presenting this topic of discussion before the Legislature. He and I do have something in common. We both represent communities of approximately equal size in the beautiful Grand River Valley. He and I were both elected to the 34th Parliament as new members last September.

This issue formed the topic of the very first question that I asked as a member of this Legislature in the very first question period that I sat in on last November 4. It is the subject of the first private member’s bill by the member for Cambridge. We do share these things in common. I would like to congratulate the member in raising this issue for debate today.

I did, as I mentioned, pose a question to the Attorney General last November 4 with respect to this tragedy which had occurred in our community. The coroner’s inquest recommended the banning of gun replicas because of the danger they pose through the inability of a police officer to determine quickly whether or not the toy gun being brandished is a real gun.

As previous members have stated, the number of seconds that an officer has to make this judgement is very, very limited. This is a matter which was taken up by the coroner’s jury. Also, the banning of such guns has the support of the Brantford Police Commission. I would encourage the members to give favourable consideration to this bill.

I would like to point out that, following the question in the House, I wrote a letter to the Attorney General and another letter to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) urging action with respect to this matter. I remind the House that the initial response I got from the Attorney General was that he believed, in his considered opinion, the matter should be dealt with at the federal level. Indeed, the Attorney General has brought this to the attention of Mr. Hnatyshyn.

It was reviewed by the ministers from across Canada, the provincial ministers, and other provinces have also pressured the federal government to take action on this matter. There is some question of the constitutionality of action in this regard. However, the issue is a pressing one and should be dealt with. I would also point out that the federal government has initiated a review of this particular issue on the request of Ontario and several of the other provinces that share this concern.

I would like to read parts of a letter which was sent by the Solicitor General of Ontario to the Honourable Harvie Andre, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in which she recommends that action be taken on this matter under the Hazardous Products Act.

Before I read the quote from the letter, I would point out that there is some precedent for dealing with this at the federal level under the Hazardous Products Act. Indeed, in the Brantford Expositor story of October 30, the reporter who investigated this indicated that there was an issue raised regarding replica bombs that looked so realistic that the bomb squads were sent in and they were not at all amused to find that these toy bombs looked exactly like real bombs and caused quite a concern, with evacuations of buildings and so on, when they were left in the wrong place. The federal government felt so concerned about this particular issue that, and I quote from the story:

“The toy bombs presented product safety officials with a special case, one which metro police argued needed the immediate attention of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Officials found the arguments persuasive. Following a study of the toy, they rushed through legislation in about a month in order to add the toy bomb to the list of banned products under the Hazardous Products Act. If a product is on the list, the sale, manufacture or import of that product is prohibited anywhere in Canada.”

I believe it is far preferable for this matter to be dealt with at the federal level, and I think our ministries have investigated this and share that view, and it is being looked into by the federal officials. However, we are not getting very far.

On first review, the minister, the Honourable Harvie Andre, has indicated that he does not feel it is a matter for discussion or for amendment to the Hazardous Products Act.

I would simply point out that the Solicitor General did write to him and said:

“What I am seeking is the control over the manufacture and sale of replica handguns pursuant to the Hazardous Products Act. It is felt that replica handguns fall within the definition of those products that are subject to control under the act.”

Later in the letter she says:

“The danger posed to the health or safety of the public is as a result of the improper use of these toys, however, it is their design and construction that permits their misuse. If they were designed or constructed differently, they would pose a far less significant danger to public safety.”

This letter from our Solicitor General was sent on April 12 to the Honourable Harvie Andre.

The response received was not at all encouraging, and it indicates: “The Hazardous Product Act is not intended to regulate products which become hazardous through accidental or intentional misuse.” Yet they did act in the case of the replica bombs; they did act to ban them right across Canada.

I feel that there is precedent here. While the bill does have some difficulties, I think, in terms of its wording and whether it might be better to handle it at the federal or the provincial level, I believe this House should support the bill in second reading, because second reading is support in principle and we can use the passing of this bill this morning as a way of helping to lever the federal government to provide support for the initiatives already taken by our ministers in presenting this case to federal officials.

I think even the member presenting it would feel it would be preferable if these types of guns could be banned Canada-wide rather than just in Ontario. Perhaps my raising it in the House in a question and his presenting this bill, both of these actions, can help to pressure the federal government to act.

I would simply say that the matter has been of some concern in our community. As I said, the banning of these toy guns has the support of the Brantford Police Commission. In addition to the tragedy, the tragic death of the person who brandished the toy gun, there is the very difficult matter of a police officer having to live with having killed a fellow human being. Police officers put their own lives on the line. It is not so much their own lives, but the psychological after-effect of having to live with the fact of having shot another man, even if it is in the line of duty.

I think we in the public who are not part of the police force should respect the difficult, split-second decisions they have to make.

The federal government has taken action to ban toy bombs because of similar kinds of effects. I think these toy replica guns are so exact one cannot tell the difference between the toy gun and the real gun; in fact, the officer concerned did not know until several hours later that the gun he was facing was a toy gun.

In conclusion, I would again compliment the member for raising this issue. My ballot item is item 95. I would not be able to get on with a private bill or resolution for some time, so I was pleased when I heard that the member for Cambridge, my colleague from the Grand River Valley, raised this important issue. I urge members to give support at second reading, to show support in principle for this action.

Mr. Philip: It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill and also to indicate my support of the previous bill under debate this morning.

As has been pointed out so many times in the newspapers, by the police chiefs and by various other groups, the fact is that gun replicas can result in death just as much as the real guns can. Replicas have often been used in robberies. They have been used to intimidate other people during times of altercation. Looking into the tragic death of Hubert Corbett, the Brantford coroner’s jury took its responsibility seriously, and I think its recommendations, as reflected in this bill, should be taken seriously.

Testimony at the coroner’s jury was rather interesting. I just want to read a

section of it to you, Madam Speaker, and then ask you a question concerning it, because I know you would be interested in making up your mind concerning this bill. One

section said, “The ‘Magnum Commando’ toy gun, which was available in K mart and Woolco stores in Brantford, has a red plastic plug in the tip of its barrel so that people can distinguish it from the real gun.” That was the testimony.

I ask you, Madam Speaker, if I were to pull out this pen and point it at you, could you tell me immediately in the wave of the pen whether it had a blue tip or a black tip, whether it was a real pen or simply a replica or a shell of a pen? I suggest to you, as the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has pointed out, that with your trained eagle eye, as a person who can even identify when one member is a few inches out of where he should be seated, as a person with that kind of astute perception, you cannot tell me the colour of the tip of the pen I just showed you or whether it was a real pen or not.

If you were in the situation that the constable was in, a situation where a robbery was taking place, where he was under stress, I ask you whether you would be able to distinguish this from a real gun, this replica which was only distinguishable from the real gun by a red tip at the end of it.

Indeed, the officer said: “I thought I was going to get shot. I was scared to death.” When his partner, Constable Sloop, and Mr. Corbett faced each other and he heard a shot, Mr. Bush, in his seventh year as an auxiliary officer, said that his fear stayed with him. “I was really scared because I didn’t know which gun had gone first.” So here is a police officer observing the situation and he cannot tell whether the gun is real or not.

We in Canada have a different tradition from our neighbours to the south. We already regulate weapons. My colleague the member for Cambridge has quoted one estimate that about 100 times a year toy or replica guns are used in holdups of various kinds. I do not know whether that estimate is correct or not. I do not know whether there are 100 incidents where police are actually faced with a replica that looks like a real gun and where they really feel they are facing down the barrel of one.

Maybe 100 is high, maybe it is an underestimate; but the fact that it can happen even once and the fact that we can have incidents of people being killed is surely enough for us to say that maybe something should be done. If we are regulating guns already, if regulations in themselves are worth while, then why not regulate something like this, which most assuredly has ended up in tragic death?

I ask the members to speak to some of the police officers in their own ridings, some of those who go to calls of family violence, where passions are high and where police officers face a greater risk, I am told, than even in the case of robberies and professional criminals. I ask members to ask them how they feel about the contents of this bill. They are the people who know what it is like to be out there. They are the people who know what kinds of situations they can get into. They know the tensions, the emotions, and they know what these things look like, because they are asking for this kind of change.

For some time I acted as a facilitator at an institution called the Creative Education Foundation in Buffalo, in which we taught various types of creative thinking, writing and so forth. We used to have the children of the people who were on workshops come in and we would also work with them. I am convinced that the creativity of children is unlimited and I ask members, do they really think that somehow children are going to be creatively deprived, that their growth is somehow going to be stunted because they are going to have to play, if their parents want them to play with these things, with imitations of guns rather than replicas of the real thing?

Some might argue that this kind of legislation can best be handled by the federal government, but if you look at the history of changes in this country, that is an argument that is constantly made. People will say, “No, it can best be handled by the federal government, because surely all provinces should be alike; there should be some uniformity.” But if we look at what happens, invariably some province has the foresight to move certain legislation. That legislation passes and acts as a lever on the federal government and, eventually, the legislation becomes universal and fairly consistent across the country.

The member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann) has just pointed out that the federal government appears to be moving very slowly on this issue. Surely the greatest way of bringing about changes is to move on them before people die, before there are more unnecessary, tragic coroners’ juries dealing with the tragic death of people where it need not have happened. Surely the time to move is now.

If we get this bill passed, eventually it will spread to the other provinces and eventually the federal government will be on side. In the meantime, I say to members that one more person should not die unnecessarily when this legislation can be passed today.

Mr. Pollock: I want to say to the member for Cambridge that I am certainly in support of this private bill in principle. There are a few things that are not in the bill that I think should be. I join with him and all members of this House in saying it is most unfortunate that a man was shot back on October 3 by a policeman who thought his assailant had a real gun. Of course, it turned out to be a replica gun.

There is not in this particular private members’ bill something I feel should be there, and I think we all agree. Most guns are either black or brown. I feel that replica guns or toy guns should be coloured some bright colour so that they would easily be distinguished as a toy gun. I know there is no quick fix, because if you coloured these toy guns orange then criminals could paint their guns one particular colour in order to slip by security in certain places. As I say, there is certainly no quick fix, but I believe that the theory the member for Cambridge advances in this bill is correct. He wants to cut down on any deaths that might occur by people using these gun replicas.

It has been mentioned, too, that this should fall under the federal government’s Hazardous Products Act. I thought the member for Brantford made a reasonably good case in mentioning that imitation bombs have been placed under that act. However, I think it is a thin line. Toy guns are just what they are -- toy guns. It is reasonably hard to place something under that act that is just a toy. In a case like that, either the federal government or this provincial government should have a whole new bill, or at least pass this bill, and ban some of these replica guns.

There is also the situation where -- like this incident about the man getting killed last October -- there have been a lot of people killed because guns are left loaded or left around the house so kids can get hold of them, and ammunition has been left around too. There have been, I would imagine, more people killed that way than through replica gun incidents. We need a better education plan actually, to act on the safety of both the replica guns and also guns lying around the house where kids can get hold of them.

The member for Brantford said that this should be handled by the federal government. I would like to point out that several years ago when we were the government, we were lobbied continually by volunteer fire departments. They wanted a green light to be made available for the top of their cars and trucks when they went to a fire, to warn the general public that there were firemen going to a fire and that sort of thing.

Our government at that time resisted that, I believe, basically because of the fact that most warning lights here are red. Therefore, they avoided ever bringing any legislation in to allow the volunteer firemen to have a green light. However, when the present government took over, it allowed this. It can do things like that, so I do not think there is any problem for it to maintain or make it mandatory that toy guns should be coloured a certain colour or that all replicas that are identical to guns should be banned.

We all know youngsters like to play cowboys and Indians. Maybe I am a little guilty of playing at this sort of thing. One day my son came to me and he said some friends were coming over and they wanted that old .22 that was down in the drive house to play with. There was no firing pin in that .22, but I thought I had better be just a little bit more on the safe side. I can weld, so I took the gun and I put a little bronze in the barrel end of it. Then I filled the chamber where the bullet goes with bronze. Of course, it had no firing pin, so that gun was rendered pretty well useless. Nevertheless, it could be used in the same situation as the member for Cambridge has mentioned.

These situations occur. I do not believe there is any quick fix as far as these replica guns are concerned, but I think that anything we can do would be appreciated by the general public. If we can save some lives, that is our job. I say to the member for Cambridge that I support his private members’ bill.

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure for me to rise and debate the bill proposed. I would like to indicate at the outset that I speak in support of the principle of the proposed legislation. I also understand, as has probably already been mentioned, that really the impetus for this bill was the incident in Brantford, the fatal shooting of a gentleman and the following recommendation through a coroner’s inquest. The jury indicated that a ban should be placed on the manufacture and sale of replica guns.

I think it has been stated and is important to state again, that a ban on the manufacture and sale of replica guns could very well have prevented this particular tragedy and may also prevent further tragedies in the future.

I note that this piece of legislation is not without precedents in other areas. In Los Angeles, in Burbank, there has been a ban of sales of replica guns. In Michigan, as well as in Massachusetts and California, legislation is currently being worked through the legislature. In Detroit, there is an ordinance prohibiting the possession, sale and advertising of replica or facsimile firearms. What we are talking about today is something which is not carving new ground; it is in this province and it could prove to be an example for other provinces to follow. In other jurisdictions, in other countries, this type of legislation has been proposed and has been passed and is now in effect.

I think that we have to make a further point; that is, the abuse of the replica guns, as occurred in the Brantford incident, is currently proscribed by the Criminal Code. We are not without our own provisions.

Section 85 does create an indictable offence which is punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment for having in one’s possession an imitation weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence. “Weapon,” as one would expect, is defined in the Criminal Code to mean anything used or intended for use for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person.

I imagine it is somewhat hard to conceive of a situation where an abuse of a replica gun would not be covered by this section. Also, an amendment could be made to

section 84, which refers to the pointing of a firearm, to include imitation firearms, so that this is not the only jurisdiction which can be seized of this matter, but also the federal jurisdiction. I dare say that some would suggest that that is the proper jurisdiction for this matter to be addressed in a more fundamental way than we can do provincially.

It could also be argued that any criminal offence simply provides an abstract deterrent that may minimize but cannot conclusively rule out the abuse of replica guns. This can be achieved only by a complete ban on their manufacture and sale.

It must be mentioned that imitation firearms have been made with other types of equipment, such as metal pipes, other materials, soap, shoes. One cannot prevent such behaviour no matter how much one tries. But once again, and notwithstanding that, it comes down to the fundamental consideration of whether the social benefits of allowing replica guns outweigh the social costs of abusing them.

I believe that those costs do dictate support in principle of this bill, and that is why I support the bill in principle, but it does not mean that I do not have some serious reservations with respect to the particular legislation before us.

The definition of “gun replica” includes an object which “closely resembles” a firearm, and I believe that this question of close resemblance is one that is somewhat vague and does require some further investigation and analysis. We have to make the distinction between banning the manufacture and sale of replica guns and regulating the sale of toy guns by licensing. The object of the bill, as indicated in the explanatory note, is “to prohibit the sale of replicas of guns that might reasonably be mistaken for real guns in the commission of a crime.”

The bill nevertheless prohibits the sale of replica guns and requires those who sell toy guns to obtain licences to do so. It does not seem that the requirement of a licence to sell guns runs in line with the purpose for which the bill has been designed, because if there is a prohibition of the sale of replica guns, anyone who sells such a gun commits a provincial offence. Why, then, is it necessary to have toy stores obtain licences before they can sell toy guns? I think there is some work to be done in making the bill more readable and flowing with respect to the purpose for which it was designed.

I guess one has to ask a further fundamental question as to why the bill prohibits only the sale of replicas and is silent as to their manufacture. That is something that demands some very serious thought.

I am going to give up some time for the remainder. I would like to indicate once more my support in principle of this legislation, but also to indicate that I do have some serious reservations with respect to some of the provisions contained within the bill and also to indicate that there is another jurisdiction, the federal jurisdiction to be specific, that I believe might be a more proper jurisdiction for such regulation in dealing not only with replica guns but also with firearms in general.

Mr. Hampton: I rise in support of this bill and I want to delineate my reasons, because I think we have had mentioned here today some arguments which I would call, “If it is not perfect, it can’t be good.” I want to deal with those kinds of arguments very briefly. There is no doubt that in our society the problem of firearms and, in this case, the problem of replicas of firearms are very serious problems and problems which I think have to be dealt with on a multijurisdictional level.

It has been pointed out by the previous speaker that there in fact may be a more appropriate jurisdiction to deal with the problem of replica guns; I emphasize the words “may be.” I also would like to say, in addressing the possibility of a more appropriate jurisdiction, that some of our most serious social problems, some of our most serious economic problems, have bounced around for 20, 30 or 40 years while a decision has been made as to which jurisdiction of government should attempt to handle them.

I would not like to see that happen with this situation. The fact of the matter is that the member has placed before the House a bill which would go a long way towards dealing with the problem of replica guns, a problem which police forces and many community groups and community associations have recognized as being a serious problem in our society. The fact that the bill cannot deal with all firearms and has not dealt with the manufacture of firearms is not, I submit, a reason to vote against or not support this bill.

In his earlier comments, the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann) has indicated that by passing this bill we might in fact hasten the necessity of this level of government or the federal level of government dealing with this very serious problem. I think we should approach this bill from that perspective. There is a very serious problem out there.

There is some possibility that it might be better dealt with at the federal level; however, if this bill were passed here today it would go a long way towards bringing the issue more clearly before the public and also hastening further discussions between this level of government and the federal level of government and, as I say, hastening the ultimate solution to this kind of problem.

For those reasons, I think it is important that everyone today support this bill. As I say, it deals with one of the issues of gun control in our country. As other speakers have pointed out, it is not just a problem of controlling firearms; it is also a problem of controlling replicas of firearms.

I need not mention that in terms of controlling firearms, there are some very strong lobbies out there which would need to be dealt with. We would rely upon the motivation of the federal government to move in that direction. But this is something we can deal with here and now. By passing this bill, we can have some effect on one of the firearm problems, namely, the problem of replica firearms. So I would urge all members to support this bill.

Mr. Callahan: I would like to commend the member for the intent or the object behind this bill. I suppose if we checked with our local police forces we would find that, more often than not, many robberies both in milk stores and banks are probably carried out with the use of replica guns. I think we have all seen some of these replicas and just how real they can look. They probably look even more real when one is staring down the end of the barrel of one of them and being told to hand over the money.

I applaud the member for the intent. I think he will be aware of the fact that the Criminal Code provides that persons can be convicted of robbery even if they use an imitation weapon. So there is already clearly within the federal legislation a penalty for using an imitation gun.

I think the member goes a bit further than that in producing his bill. Actually what he is attempting to do could very possibly have the cross-over of a federal jurisdiction, in my humble opinion. But more important than that, it is a matter which would really interfere in an area that might have proportions far beyond what the bill itself at first blush seems to indicate. It could wind up with a manufacturer, before he was to prepare any GI Joe type of thing, having to go to the minister and get a permit. I think that perhaps would not be as well received.

I did suggest to the member, although I am going to vote against the measure, that this is something that should certainly be made known to the Attorney General of Canada and the Solicitor General of Canada, because it is a very significant problem that exists today. In a very real sense, an assault is an assault, particularly when it is with a weapon, be it a replica or a real weapon. It is one that causes great consternation and fright, not just for the moment, but perhaps a continuing concern and fear to those people.

In terms of the intent, I applaud the member for his efforts in that regard. There is no doubt there is a problem, but I regrettably have to vote against it because I do not believe this bill itself meets that particular problem. I think it should be dealt with by the federal government, but I certainly hope that a message will go forth to tell the federal government we are concerned about it and to have them look at the issue.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West for a short period.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: A short period of time, unfortunately, but I also wish to register my opposition to this private member’s action, although again I agree with the previous speaker that it has been brought in for good motives. I really do worry when we bring in legislation which will outlaw the sale of a replica while at the same time in Ontario we license the real thing. It seems to be slightly Alice-in-Wonderlandish to have that kind of an emphasis.

I have real concerns about just what the definition is going to be of these replicas. I think of pellet guns and starter pistols. Are we going to ban blanks now? It would be an interesting notion to follow this particular theme a little further. The federal law is clear on when a weapon or a replica is used. The punishments are there. The kind of ideas that are placed here I think are very dangerous.

Are we going to start banning replica rubber knives as well, if they look like they are throwing knives? Do we not understand that in fact this is a very dangerous kind of infringement on civil liberties by the state and that the carrier of a weapon, whether it is a real one or a replica, who involves himself in a crime bears some responsibility at that time?

Yes, there are unfortunate circumstances which take place and deaths of people such as the example that has been used as the cause for this particular piece of legislation. But, my goodness, in the end I really do wonder about this kind of emphasis and I would ask at least some members of the House to join me in opposition.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cambridge had reserved, I believe, a little more than five minutes for a windup.

Mr. Farnan: I would like to emphasize, as was pointed out earlier, that there are states in the United States that have taken a stand and have legislation that bans the sale of such replicas. If we are looking at a situation, we do not wait and say, “We will wash our hands of responsibility because we are waiting for this other level to act.” If California, Michigan or Massachusetts had that kind of situation, there would be no legislation in those states.

I think the important thing that comes out of the vote on this particular legislation this morning is the message that we will send. The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) talked about manufacture. We are not talking about manufacture. We cannot control manufacture. Manufacture can come from outside of Canada, outside of Ontario. But we can control sale and, if people cannot sell, they will not be manufactured for an Ontario market.

The important thing is the message that we send out today. I think the member for Brantford clearly defined this. The passage of this bill says that this House is vitally concerned about replica guns and the danger in which they place our police officers. We will never know the number of crimes that have been committed using replica guns. We have an opportunity, my friends, to establish some controls on the availability of these types of replica guns.

The history of legislation throughout Canada is based on the fact that maybe an initiative is taken at a provincial level and it works. Other provinces look at that and say: “Yes, it works. We’ll try it”; or the federal jurisdiction looks at the idea and says: “It works. We’ll introduce legislation that affects the country as a whole.”

I think that the public of Ontario will look at us today and ask what message we are sending out. I think the way members vote on this is the way they vote that message. I hear members say they agree with this bill in principle. Passage of this bill in principle has various options. One option is that it can go to the federal government. It can also go to our own provincial government. But it does say something, that there is a concern, there is an isssue.

Hopefully our provincial government -- that would be my preference -- will show leadership and provide legislation. But certainly it could be used as an argument in the ongoing dialogue between the provincial and federal levels.

We cannot stand idly by and not support our police officers if by our actions there is any chance at all that, as a result of our legislation or as a result of passage of this bill this morning, but hopefully as a result of some practical legislation at the provincial or federal level, we are decreasing the opportunities for these types of circumstances to arise.

We have heard of the instances, the split-second decisions; and police officers cannot second-guess. They should not second-guess, in my estimation, because their own lives are at stake. We heard from my colleague who mentioned where a police officer lost his life in a circumstance when faced with a gun, a real gun in that particular case.

This bill, I think, does come under provincial jurisdiction. It does give us a control. We cannot control the manufacture, but we can control the sales. Manufacture can come from way beyond Canada. But I think all members will agree people do not manufacture for a foreign market if they know in advance that market has a ban on the sale of their particular product. I think the arguments that have been put forward by the member for Mississauga North do not stand in this regard.

Finally, I would like to thank all members who participated in the debate, both pro and con. I think all the words were well meant, and I would ask for members’ support in the vote that is about to take place.

DEAF PERSONS’ RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Stoner has moved second reading of Bill 143.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

GUN REPLICA SALE PROHIBITION ACT

The House divided on Mr. Farnan’s motion for second reading of Bill 145, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Ballinger, Bryden, Carrothers, Charlton, Cleary, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Daigeler, Dietsch, Epp, Farnan, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Johnson, J. M., LeBourdais, Lipsett, Mahoney, Martel, Matrundola, McCague, Morin-Strom, Neumann, Nicholas, Philip, E., Poirier, Pollock, Pouliot, Ray, M. C., Roberts, Sterling, Stoner, Villeneuve.

Nays

Callahan, Elliot, Fleet, Johnston, R. F., Kozyra, Laughren, Mancini, Miller, Nixon, J. B., Polsinelli, Reville, Reycraft, Smith, D. W., Tatham, Velshi.

Ayes 38; nays 15.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

The House recessed at 12:10 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ EXPENDITURES

The Deputy Speaker: I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the individual members’ expenditures for the fiscal year 1987-88. Members will find their copies placed in the desks in the chamber.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am rising on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday during question period, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) directed an important question to me in my capacity as minister responsible for women’s issues. The substance of his question was to ask that the government consider adding to its interministerial committee on sexual assault representatives from the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

After being recognized by the Speaker and before replying to the substance of the question, I interjected on a matter wholly unrelated to the issue at hand. The remark carried with it a lightness and a frivolity that has no place within any forum that is considering the serious issue of sexual assault against women in Ontario.

It was wholly inappropriate to preface my response as I did. I want to apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to every member of this House, and in a special way to the member for Burlington South, who, I know, has made this issue an important part of his political commitment.

I also want to publicly apologize to those thousands of men and women who are working with such complete commitment, often through long hours, as volunteers to reshape our society in such a way that sexual assault becomes just a sad and dark aspect of our past. The freedom and equality of women depend so much on the success of their collective efforts, as they do also upon the support they have through effective government programs.

Finally, I want to reiterate the substance of my reply to the member for Burlington South. I will take seriously the member’s suggestion to expand the interministerial committee and I will continue to welcome his suggestions as to how the committee might deal with all aspects of the sexual assault problem. I know how deeply he is committed to those objectives.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Pouliot: I want to take this opportunity to bring the members of this House up to date on the very grave situation that has been allowed to develop at the Kimberly-Clark mill in the township of Terrace Bay.

The government, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), I should add, is only too well aware that between 600 and 700 workers, members of the International Woodworkers of America, Local 2693, have been in a legal work stoppage, have been on strike in the communities of Longlac, Nakina, Geraldton and Terrace Bay. All they are really asking for is job security.

The Minister of Labour in particular should remind himself that negotiations reached an impasse more than five weeks ago and very little has been achieved in terms of trying to bring both parties back to the negotiating table.

Picket line reports indicate that pulpwood is being delivered by Canadian Pacific into the Terrace Bay mill yard on United States rail cars entering Canada through the point of Emerson. I therefore call upon the government to exercise its mandate and immediately review this abusive, systematic and deliberate labour practice.

CARAVAN

Mr. Cousens: Tomorrow, June 17, marks the 20th anniversary of the collective salute to our provincial diversity known as Caravan. This nine-day event revolves around 40 different pavilions in the city of Toronto, reflecting the cosmopolitan nature of the province of Ontario. The original pavilions of Blue Danube, Budapest, Kiev, Manila, Shannon, Vienna and Volga are celebrating a special 20th anniversary, and this year they will be joined by 33 others and the memories of the 992 that have gone before.

Metro International Caravan is not simply important as a tourist attraction; more important, it is a tremendous exercise in co-operation and education. Cultural boundaries are dissolved and understanding grows as each visitor uses his passport to literally travel the world from one pavilion to another. This inexpensive, family-oriented festival develops cross-cultural ties which carry on long after Caravan is finished for the year. The nonpolitical activities of Caravan are now part of a tradition which could not continue without the hard work of hundreds of volunteers from throughout the province. Their efforts deserve our support and the recognition of the members of this House.

It is my party’s hope that once again Caravan will enjoy the success it has always known and that it will continue to foster understanding and pride in the many cultural communities of our province.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Faubert: Members of this House may recall, shall we say, a not-so-supportive newspaper

article in the Toronto Sun last fall which questioned the courage of this government’s Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) and criticized him for a lack of action. In retrospect, that

article could be no further from the truth.

This government has demonstrated progressive leadership and courage in reforming our local governments to make them more responsive, effective and accountable. Having experienced the up and down sides of local government for almost 20 years as a member of Scarborough and Metro councils, I now take pride in commending the government for its timely and necessary actions.

Three major pieces of legislation have been brought before the Legislature this spring to reform Ontario’s system of local government. Direct election to Metropolitan Toronto council was approved in February, which makes Metro government more responsible, accountable and comprehensible to the citizens.

Legislation was passed in April establishing a new system of enumeration which could be carried out through the mail. Despite the doubts of the opposition, 75 per cent of the citizens of the province have already responded to this notice.

Let’s not forget Bill 106, passed last week, which, among a number of required reforms, sets limits that require disclosure of campaign contributions and expenses. The reforms inherent in this legislation and the two previously mentioned initiatives will open up our system of local government here in Metropolitan Toronto and throughout the province.

Once again, this minister and this government have tackled contentious issues and provided effective and progressive solutions to meet the needs of the people of Ontario.

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I wish to bring to the attention of members of the House a clash between the civil rights of the average citizen of the city of Toronto and the security of the leaders of the free world who are here for the summit in the next number of days. While we would all want to make sure that those people are secure and that they are free from acts of terrorism, there are a number of excesses which I really think members should know about.

Canadian Union of Public Employees members in the city of Toronto who do garbage pickup in the centre of the city were asked by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to be fingerprinted. As of today, they have been asked actually to do bomb checks in the sewers of the city and rightfully have said that is the job of the police, not them.

There will be a mass gathering of a coalition of groups on Sunday. They have been told by security here that they cannot have tables or chairs because they could be used as weapons. There will be no access for the St. John Ambulance to this site, even if somebody is injured or hurt during that period, because of security reasons as well.

This is all happening at the same time as University Avenue will be open all the way down to Dundas. At the same time, the members of the summit will be in my riding, at the Toronto Hunt club. They will not even be in this district, but members of the Fallingbrook Presbyterian Church, a known coven for great terrorists, will not be allowed to drive their cars to their church this weekend.

I would suggest to members of the House that sometimes we need to be a little louder about protecting the civil rights of our citizens.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LABOUR DISPUTES

Mrs. Marland: There comes a time when somebody has to speak up for the thousands of people in this province who are being held hostage by a very small minority. I am speaking today about the construction workers’ strikes that have been dragging on now for weeks. Most people in this province believe in fairness. Most people believe that workers deserve fair settlements. However, most people are sick and tired of having to pay, pay, pay for the unresolved strike action that is going on in the construction industry today.

In my riding, I am hearing daily from families who have sold their homes to move into a house that is supposed to be completed by August and have not even had the foundation poured. These people suffer. They have no place to live.

Mortgage rates go up. The price of their new homes will probably increase, leaving many families which can barely afford a new home in real financial straits.

But who seems to care? Not this group of Liberal do-nothings. Small business suffers. Many of the suppliers and contractors are at the point of packing it all in. This is the bread-and-butter time of the year for the construction industry. And we tax the workers of this province to death, taking away money from the working people.

The Minister of Labour is doing nothing. He is short of cowardly in dealing with these issues. We saw how the disabled had to suffer earlier this year when they were used as pawns in a labour dispute.

Sometimes we seem to forget that the people who end up paying for all of this are the constituents in our ridings. It is time somebody stood up for the small business person, the new home owner and the constituents. They are tired of being ignored, and I think it is not fair.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY SENIOR GAMES

Mrs. Fawcett: Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to open the Northumberland County Senior Games at the Haldimand Township Recreational Centre. Seniors throughout our county participated in a great number and variety of events. Through their participation, they again showed us that age is no barrier to the enjoyment of life. All of those who participated were winners.

However, I would like to make special mention of some of those who will go on to represent Northumberland at district events in Peterborough. They are Margaret Mercer, Clint Branning, Tom Bland, Ruth Gordon, Bessie Leadbeater, Muriel Moore, Gunter Pahl, Barnie Sorensen, Sylvia Cowan, Eileen Kinsey, Ann Donnelly, Margaret Rowland, Ronnie Meades, Lillian Thain, Jan Clarke, Gerry Ireland, Joyce Lees, Winnifred McCracken and Charles Cragg.

Recognizing that June has been proclaimed Senior Citizens Month, I would ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating these individuals who have shown us that opportunity truly is ageless.

LOTTERY TICKET FRANCHISES

Mr. McLean: My statement is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil). It is my understanding that Lottario ticket franchises are automatically awarded to new Becker stores whenever they open for business.

However, the minister is leaving the small independent store owners out in the cold by freezing them out of the Lottario ticket business. Store owners, large or small, undoubtedly appreciate the opportunity to participate in the sale of lottery tickets because customers who come into the store to buy them will undoubtedly purchase other products while they are buying their lottery tickets.

The policy for awarding lottery ticket franchises to the stores is doing wonders for their businesses, but it appears that the independents are not recognized, not appreciated and not supported by this government under the minister’s current policy for awarding lottery ticket franchises. I have to wonder why he is bypassing the independent store owners in favour of the large chains when it comes to awarding these franchises.

The resignation requested of Mr. Morris is unacceptable in my opinion. Why was the minister not looking at Mr. Stothers, the chairman of the Ontario Lottery Corp. Maybe he is the one at fault. I say to the minister it is a shame.

MOTION ON SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of the House to read a motion on South Africa.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, if I might, we discussed this matter earlier today at a House leaders’ meeting and I indicated, through his good offices, to the New Democratic Party House leader that the motion is not one that we could deal with today because of its impact on both the government and our caucus which have not had the opportunity to deal with it.

As I indicated about an hour ago to the office of the House leader of the official opposition, we would be quite happy to take that to our caucus and have it dealt with there at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, we could not give unanimous consent to deal with it today.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The leader of the official opposition has made what I think is a very serious request for unanimous consent on a matter which, the government knows full well, if it is not dealt with immediately, is too late to deal with next Tuesday. Our party believes it is of sufficient importance that we think unanimous consent should be given, particularly when the request and the suggestion were that it not take more than, I believe, six minutes of House time to deal with the resolution.

We have a very large caucus that has an interest in these matters. I am saying to my colleagues in the opposition that I am certainly quite prepared to take that resolution to our caucus and report back at an early time, perhaps before the summit has concluded next week.

I do not want in any way to minimize the importance of the issue -- that is granted on all sides -- but I respectfully ask my friends in the opposition to understand that a matter of this nature is one which I, as government House leader, would like to share with my colleagues in the caucus which is, after all, representative of a majority of members in this assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: As we do not have unanimous consent, we shall now revert to statements from the ministry.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PARALEGALS

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to announce today, the establishment of a study of paralegals in Ontario. Dr. Ron Ianni, the president of the University of Windsor, will undertake a study of their role and function in Ontario’s legal system with a view to making recommendations as to which services they should be permitted to deliver and, if they are permitted to deliver any legal services, how they should be regulated, if at all.

Dr. Ianni will be assisted by an advisory committee and will consult with representatives of the legal profession, paralegals, the public and government.

The study is essential for a number of reasons, as I think the history of the issue will make clear. First, the Ontario Court of Appeal in its decision in the POINTTS (Provincial Offences Information and Traffic Ticket Services) case has determined that under current Ontario law, agents who are not lawyers may act on behalf of parties before certain courts and tribunals. Statutes such as the Provincial Offences Act, the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Coroners Act are exceptions to the general prohibition contained in the Law Society Act, and the Law Society of Upper Canada has accepted this decision and has not undertaken an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Second, in 1980, the Professional Organizations Committee examined the licensing of law in Ontario. That committee examined the possibility of allowing certain routine legal services to be delivered by nonlawyers. In 1980, it concluded that such an exercise was, as it said, impossible and undesirable. Notwithstanding that conclusion, there are estimates that now as many as 1,000 paralegals are operating and carrying on business in Ontario. Why this has occurred, what they are actually doing and the consequences are not known.

Third, Bill 42, a private members’ bill, was before the standing committee on administration of justice in May and June of 1987. The bill, it should be noted, proposed that the Law Society of Upper Canada, through a subcommittee, should regulate paralegals in Ontario.

It would appear that the solution proposed by Bill 42 is not the appropriate answer to the paralegal question in Ontario at this time, but it also appears that there is a consensus among interested groups in this area, including the paralegals who appeared before the legislative committee, that further study of the larger issues is needed because we are, especially if their position is correct, on the frontier of what may be a profound change in the marketplace of legal services.

I am therefore pleased to announce the establishment of this project. During his deliberations, Dr. Ianni will be able to address the Court of Appeal decision in POINTTS. He will be able to update the findings and recommendations of the Professional Organizations Committee in the light of current realities and he will be able to take into account the very thoughtful submissions that have been made by interested groups to the ministry and the standing committee, which indicated its desire to have a study of this type.

I have asked Dr. Ianni to report to me in the spring of 1989 and indeed, if possible, before that time. I look forward to the receipt of this report.

Let me conclude by reminding all members that Ontario is at the forefront of the consideration of this very complex but very important issue, and Dr. Ianni’s report should have a profound effect upon the province.

RESPONSES

PARALEGALS

Mr. B. Rae: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the government are certainly keeping Dr. Ianni busy these days. We congratulate him on this appointment. I just want to say a few words on it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Keeping some of your friends busy, too.

Mrs. Grier: Not enough.

Mr. B. Rae: Touchy, touchy.

It is obviously a subject of legitimate concern. Since I will not be asking a question of the Attorney General about this today, by way of general inquiry I would simply ask whether it is his intention to ask Dr. Ianni to look into the question of what nonlawyers do generally apart from the act of representation.

I refer the Attorney General in particular to questions of conveyancing and real estate transactions. I myself for a number of years have questioned why it is that lawyers need to have a monopoly on such simple legal transactions as the sale of a house, for example; whether it is essential, in fact, to have a lawyer’s fee for that kind of transaction when it is, from a legal standpoint, a relatively simple transaction. Indeed, with computerized land tenure registries, it seems to me less and less necessary for the full panoply -- and, I might add, cost -- of the legal profession to be borne by the poor old consumer.

We look forward to discussing this question with Dr. Ianni. I know my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) and I have some ideas on this subject. Both of us have been involved in the legal aid and legal clinic movement for some time. Also, we have some very strong views on the question of nonlawyers’ rights to represent clients with respect to clients’ protection from people who really are not qualified to provide advice and who in fact are overcharging for that advice.

Perhaps I can refer specifically, above the rather substantial din which is now in front of me, to the question of the rights of recent immigrants to this country, who are frequently taken advantage of by those not in a position to know; who claim that they are, for example, able to give special advice in the field of immigration or whatever the field may be and who charge a very heavy sum for that but are not particularly regulated by any acts of this province in that regard.

I welcome this study by Dr. Ianni and look forward to discussing it with him.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Is there any other response from the official opposition? If not, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr. Eves: I also would like to respond to the statement made today by the Attorney General.

This issue was first brought to the forefront by Brian Lawrie, president of POINTTS. He is also president of the Paralegal Association of Ontario. Mr. Lawrie is present in the members’ gallery today.

Mr. Lawrie was charged by the Law Society of Upper Canada in 1985 for unlawfully acting as a barrister or solicitor. Following three separate court decisions, all in favour of POINTTS, the Court of Appeal decision in March 1987 was unanimous in establishing the right of independent paralegal agents to offer representation in the lower court systems for a fee.

As early as May 1986, with the introduction of Bill 42, the former member for Oakville championed the right of consumers to a choice in representation available, while also recognizing the need for appropriate regulatory legislation for paralegals.

This is a long-overdue announcement, especially in the light of the commitment by the Attorney General early in 1987 to introduce legislation immediately following the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. I say it is overdue because I note by the statement today that this report is not expected until the spring of 1989.

I presume from that it will be late 1989 or 1990 before we have any legislation drafted by the Ministry of the Attorney General. It has taken the ministry some three years even to come to this point. It has been two years since Bill 42 was first introduced in the House, and it has been over a year since the Court of Appeal decision and a commitment from the Attorney General to do something about it. I hope that they get on with this task and that this is not just another delaying tactic on something that could have been in the works for the last three years.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Eves: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise on a point of order under standing order 88(d). You will recall that this is the standing order which deals with response time for questions in Orders and Notices. Since the election of this government, it has become more and more difficult to get information on a wide variety of matters. In addition to the difficulties we have been experiencing with the timeliness of responses to order paper questions, we have had serious concerns about the quality of those responses.

However, the difficulty in obtaining information from this government is not limited to order paper questions. We have brought to the Speaker’s attention the difficulties members have experienced under freedom of information legislation, our frustration with this government’s reluctance to deal with estimates and our concern with various ministers using translation delays to withhold reports. Yesterday we asked questions about delays in ministers tabling annual reports.

Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that standing order 88(

d) states: “The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 days... .” As of six o’clock last night, this government has failed to meet the deadline for responses under standing order 88(

d) for my order paper questions dealing with the capital budgeting for the ministries which I critique. These order paper questions deal specifically with the financial administration of this government. They deal with ministry budgets of this government for the past two years. I will not read the whole of these order paper questions into the record at this time, but I do have copies of them here. They are order paper questions 283, 294 and 303.

This government has failed to provide adequate opportunity for opposition parties to scrutinize ministry budgets under the estimates process for the last two years, as outlined in the standing orders. Now they have failed to respond to what I believe are very responsible and legitimate questions about this government’s financial administration. This government’s disregard for the importance of the estimates process and its now blatant disregard of our legitimate requests under standing order 88 indicate to me that this government is either not interested in being accountable for its expenditures or is deliberately avoiding accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I know you cannot force ministers to give quality responses to order paper questions, you cannot force them to table reports and you cannot force them to answer freedom of information requests. But you must have some power which will force members to abide by the standing orders. Will you or will you not enforce standing order 88(d)?

The Deputy Speaker: I note your objections.

As we all know, the standing orders have been prepared by and for all the members of this House. I can only encourage the ministers to help everybody respond and to respect all standing orders, including 88(d). I think it has been noted before that I personally cannot, as Speaker, make sure and guarantee that this will be done. I can only encourage the government to respect standing order 88(d).

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am anxious to comment briefly on the intervention of the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), who knows perfectly well that it is, for example, the intention of myself later this afternoon to refer the matter that is troubling a number of members in this Legislature, as to the relationship between the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and members of this assembly, to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. He knows that. He will be happy to hear me repeat that in the presence of his colleagues.

He will know that we have responded, I think very effectively, to the vast majority of the increasingly numerous requests, particularly from the third party, in so far as order paper questions are concerned. I think there are a few occasions where we have in fact even resorted to the language used by the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague), who, in an earlier role, served as Chairman of the Management Board and, in dealing with a flurry of requests from ourselves while we were in that place, indicated -- and I think quite properly -- that there were a number of avenues open to honourable members in terms of securing information.

The evidence that I have put before this chamber in recent times as to the compliance of the government with respect to the order paper requests, I think, is quite good, although admittedly not perfect. I will redouble my efforts respecting the time-honoured tradition and the standing orders that all honourable members are entitled to as much information as we can possibly provide, although I would indicate to my friend from Parry Sound that it is certainly his understanding and the practice of this assembly that members have a wide range of opportunities to elicit information from the executive council.

I would say in conclusion that his request and the one often put, in sometimes more vigorous tones, by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) that we get on with estimates is something that we are quite prepared to honour, notwithstanding the concerns that other members in the opposition have identified as to how we might do that.

I am quite prepared to do everything I can to ensure that the compliance is 100 per cent, and I encourage my friends, particularly in the third party, to chat perhaps with the member for Simcoe West and to look at the wide range of possibilities they have for the extraction of information, not the least of which, of course, is question period.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think that you, as one of the presiding officers, must understand the frustration that the opposition parties are experiencing. We have the opportunity to put questions on the order paper and expect replies, which is not happening. We have the opportunity to do estimates in committee, which is not happening. It did not happen last year, because of the election, and then it did not happen because of the legislation that had to be referred out to committee.

Then we had a commitment from the government that this time it would seriously review the aspects of the report of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly on changing the rules, which had not been implemented in the last go-round. The House leaders met, and that whole report has been put aside and has not been dealt with in this session of the Legislature. That report, as you will know, Mr. Speaker, made suggestions on how estimates and budgets and policies of ministries could be more adequately and more thoroughly dealt with, as has been recommended by the auditor of this province as well.

None of the avenues that the opposition parties have attempted to take to do their job appropriately and to hold this government accountable have worked. The government completely stalls and does not give answers to the opposition parties.

All I can say is, we will be adjourning this place in a couple of weeks, but come the fall, when we come back to this place, if there are no changes in the rules to deal more adequately with estimates and to get answers to these questions, then I expect that every hour of estimates will be dealt with in committee and we will get answers, one way or the other, out of the government. We are not going to continue to do government legislation in committees and in the House and not get real answers to legitimate questions. It just cannot continue to operate this way.

The Deputy Speaker: As the Speaker, I can only reiterate that I cannot guarantee that any or all of the members will respect all of the standing orders at any time. I think I am very well placed to be able to state this. I can only repeat the invitation to all members, but in this particular case to the ministers, to