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

April 14, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Apr-14 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 14 April 2005 Jeudi 14 avril 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

GENDER-BASED

PRICE DISCRIMINATION

PROHIBITION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

INTERDISANT LA DISCRIMINATION

DES PRIX FONDÉE SUR LE SEXE

KARLA HOMOLKA

GENDER-BASED

PRICE DISCRIMINATION

PROHIBITION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

INTERDISANT LA DISCRIMINATION

DES PRIX FONDÉE SUR LE SEXE

KARLA HOMOLKA

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VOLUNTEERS

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

RURAL ONTARIO

VAISAKHI

HOSPITAL FUNDING

REGION OF PEEL

HOSPITAL FUNDING

IMMIGRANTS

HEALTH CARE

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KHALSA DAY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE JOUR DU KHALSA

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

DEFERRED VOTES

TOBACCO CONTROL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRUCTURING

CORMORANT POPULATION

AUTISM TREATMENT

HEALTH CARE

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

AUTISM TREATMENT

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

REGULATION OF PARALEGALS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

SKILLS TRAINING

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ANTI-SCALDING DEVICE

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

SHARIA LAW

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MANDATORY GUNSHOT WOUNDS

REPORTING ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA DÉCLARATION

OBLIGATOIRE DES BLESSURES

PAR BALLE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

GENDER-BASED

PRICE DISCRIMINATION

PROHIBITION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

INTERDISANT LA DISCRIMINATION

DES PRIX FONDÉE SUR LE SEXE

Mr. Berardinetti moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 182,

An Act to prohibit price discrimination on the basis of gender / Projet de loi 182, Loi interdisant la discrimination des prix fondée sur le

sexe.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Berardinetti, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I will be sharing some of my time later on. My colleagues from Huron-Bruce, London-Fanshawe

and Don Valley West will have some comments on this bill as well.

In my 10 minutes, I just want to briefly outline Bill 182,

An Act to prohibit price discrimination on the basis of gender. Today's bill is about discrimination,

discrimination that exists today, in 2005, in Ontario. It is called gender-based pricing discrimination.

Nobody in this chamber today would support discrimination. In fact, we have here in Ontario the Ontario Human Rights Code, which specifically addresses the issue

of discrimination. I have a copy of that with me today and I would briefly like to read into the record the

preamble of Ontario Human Rights Code. It reads as follows:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and

peace in the world and is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations;

"And

whereas it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without

discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part

of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the province; and

"And

whereas these principles have been confirmed in Ontario by a number of enactments of the Legislature and it is desirable to revise and extend the protection

of human rights in Ontario;

"Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, enacts as follows:"

I'll only read

part I, which is "Freedom From Discrimination." It reads:

"Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin,

colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, same-sex partnership status, family status or disability."

Unfortunately, this code is not complete. Today, I bring forward

an act, Bill 182, which will help in many ways to bring some completion to this code and to

fulfill some much-needed areas of public policy and social policy here in Ontario.

I'm joined in the debate today and here in the assembly by one of Canada's most popular business writers, Joanne Thomas Yaccato. She's here today. She's the

president of the Joanne Thomas Yaccato Group and the author of several books, including The 80% Minority and Balancing Act. I'm also joined by the inspiration of my life and the inspiration behind

this bill in many ways, my wife, Michelle Berardinetti. She and Joanne have teamed up to work on this with me, and I owe a lot of this to their hard work and to their research. I'm simply bringing

forward a small portion of the work that they've done.

I want to use my remaining time to tell you a little story. This story starts last October, when Michelle and I got married. Shortly after we got married, we did

things that normal married couples do: We fixed our house, we got to know each other's families, we got to know our neighbours, she started to learn to put up with my snoring and we started

shopping together.

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): Snoring also happened at council meetings.

Mr. Berardinetti: Snoring also happened at council meetings, as Councillor Duguid has pointed out. That was in the good old Scarborough

days.

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): Stay on topic.

Mr. Berardinetti: I'll try to stay on topic, thank you.

When we went shopping, Michelle told me about something interesting, and that was something called the gender tax. Being a typical male, I didn't have a clue

what she was talking about. I soon learned, however, what gender tax was all about. We went out and we went shopping. We bought deodorant, 50 grams for her, 50 grams for me, basically the same

brand. Mine cost $2.99; hers cost $3.99.

We needed some new clothes, so we went to get ourselves each a suit. We liked a certain brand, so we went to look for comparable men's and women's styles. Mine

was about $800 -- it was expensive, but I like to keep my suit for several years -- and hers, of a similar style and a similar type, was $1,200. We needed alterations on our suits. Mine were free,

they were included in the suit; hers were $180. We continued on our shopping adventure. We dropped off dry cleaning and left some dress shirts there. We went to pick them up. Both of the shirts,

hers and mine, were 100% cotton dress shirts. Mine were $1.55 each and hers were $3.95 each. I have with me today that little receipt, which I keep close to myself and which reminds of the

difference in price for basically the same shirt.

It was at this point that I started to ask Michelle questions: "Why is there a difference in price?" She replied, "Gender tax, my dear." So I asked her if she

would come with me to visit the dry cleaner and to ask the dry cleaner why there was a difference in price. We argued and we haggled, and basically the dry cleaner said that the bottom line is that

a woman's shirt is going to cost more and that a man's shirt could fit on a press and a woman's shirt could not fit on that press. That argument was to no avail.

We went to the clothing store, and I asked the person who had sold us our suits why her suit cost so much more and why she had to pay for alterations. The reply

I got was basically that women's suits cost more because women are fussier. That was the explanation given to me: They want their suits done a certain way, and men will accept them off the rack

with minor alterations.

From that, we went on and experienced similar situations involving things like haircuts, where, yes, she does have longer hair than I do, but if we went in for a

trim and both spent 20 minutes in the chair to get a trim, I would pay maybe $15, and she would pay something between $60 and $100.

Michelle and I decided to do some research on this topic, and we soon started to dig up certain interesting things. One of the things we found was an

article in

the Wall Street Journal. This

article was written several years ago; in fact, it was written back in 1994. In the Wall Street Journal, which is considered a small-c conservative newspaper, the

headline reads, "State May Ban Bias In Pricing Hairdos and Wash." The

article goes on to talk about women complaining for years that they have to pay more than men pay in clothing, dry cleaning,

shirt laundering and haircuts. It also mentions that California is proposing to do something about it. In this article, the writer says that California was proceeding with this new legislation, and

then goes on to address the various critics who speak against it.

The critics basically say that it should be left to the marketplace to deal with this issue. The

article responds by saying that consumer markets don't always

punish irrational behaviour. Some retailers can get away with charging more, based on convenience rather than price, for example, and many consumers don't have the time to do comparison shopping.

The

article also points out various evidence and surveys that have been done in California and in New York, which show that women pay significantly more than men do for things like haircuts, dry

cleaning and other things.

From this article, we then went on to find

an act that was enacted in California in 1995, which dealt with gender-based pricing. In California, they actually now

have in place a law known as the Gender Tax Repeal Act, and that deals with repealing or not allowing people to charge more for basically the same service.

Today's bill is simply an attempt to carry out what California and other jurisdictions are also doing. Miami-Dade county and New York City have enacted similar

legislation and regularly send out notices or bulletins reminding retailers that gender-based pricing is prohibited in that region or county.

I'm simply asking today that this Legislature do the same thing that is being done elsewhere in North America, something that makes common sense: to charge the

same price to women or to men for the same good or service. I ask the support of this Legislature today in approving second reading of my bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm pleased to join the debate this morning on Bill 182, the Gender-Based Price Discrimination

Prohibition Act, 2005, which has been introduced by the member for Scarborough Southwest. Certainly I commend the member for bringing this issue forward. It has actually raised quite a bit of media

interest, and I see that we even have some media here today.

However, I would also have to say that, personally, it has not been an issue that I have received mail or phone calls or faxes about. In fact, I would have to

say at this point in time that the only comments that I did receive personally were that the principle behind this bill is obviously commendable, but there were some who said they felt there were

more pressing matters that the government needed to be dealing with, such as education, health, the environment and safety.

What this bill does is prohibit discrimination, and I support that we need to take action against any form of discrimination.

This bill specifically says that we need to prohibit price discrimination on the basis of gender. One of the things we need to determine and what we need to

answer is: Is price discrimination, indeed, based on gender? That's a very important question that we need to answer, because I don't know that anyone is certain at this point in time whether or

not that is so. How are you going to determine if it is indeed based on gender, and who is going to have the authority to determine that? What criteria are going to be established?

I see in this bill that the Ontario Human Rights Commission would have the authority to listen to complaints that might be filed, as well as the Superior Court

of Justice. So obviously, there is going to have to be some sort of an infrastructure established to determine who would be eligible to file these complaints, how they are going to be handled, what

financial and human resources are going to be required and who is going to do the investigation. There are a lot of consequences to introducing this legislation that need to be taken into

consideration.

But I go back to the fact that if there is indeed price discrimination on the basis of gender, we need to deal with it. Personally, I can recall when I've gone

to a dry cleaner and I've had my husband's shirt and my simple white blouse, we do pay a different price. Also, when our clothes go through the alteration process, women usually are required to pay

for shortening of their slacks and men oftentimes are not. Is that price discrimination on the basis of gender? I don't know. Or is it simply the practice of that particular retail outlet?

Do you know what? It's an issue that I don't think you can answer with a simple, "Yes, we need to move forward on it." I think this issue is one that needs a lot

of examination. I think we need to take a look at the consequences of this legislation. What impact is it going to have on the people in the province of Ontario? Is it going mean, at the end of the

day, that everybody's price goes up to the highest level? That's a possible consequence as well.

Again, price discrimination on the basis of gender is unacceptable. I understand this legislation does exist in California, but I also understand that the

legislation is routinely violated because of the lack of public awareness. So I guess another question you ask yourself is, how would you enforce the legislation? Again, what resources would be

required to do so?

Maybe, at the end of the day, this bill will cause people to seriously consider if, in the product they are offering, there is discrimination based on gender.

Perhaps it will cause any companies that have a difference in pricing, or someone who offers a service, to take a second look and seriously consider whether this is happening, or indeed, if there

are valid reasons for the price differential. I really don't know.

This bill, as commendable as it is on the part of the member from Scarborough Southwest, really does require some further examination as to the consequences and

the reality of the situation. I think it needs much more study before anybody would be able to give approval for it moving forward.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I certainly join the media in congratulating the member for Scarborough Southwest for a bill that is

being considered top-notch as a public relations exercise. It was, a number of weeks ago, I would say, a very successful public relations exercise, and it does tweak our sensitivities with respect

to discrimination. I'm sure the member will call for hearings on this one.

I have always been opposed to predatory pricing based on an individual's knowledge or lack of knowledge of what may be under the hood, for example, when they

take a vehicle into the garage and perhaps unwittingly have prices that are jacked up by their mechanic. But I have some problems with this legislation as well.

One reason I say this is that hairdressers, barbers and dry cleaners will rightly tell you that the price differences that they may set and that the government

member has decried so vehemently are indeed based on -- and I quote this bill -- "the cost, difficulty or effort of providing the goods or services."

Now, I certainly got an earful from Melinda, where I get my hair cut. She explained that typically a hairstyle for a woman does take longer. It can be more

difficult than a more basic typical male hairstyle like that of the member for Erie-Lincoln. She's put in the position where she would have to explain to her female customers and her male customers

that perhaps she's going to have to adjust the prices. That makes it difficult for someone in business.

I'm not the only one who feels this is a bit of a publicity exercise. I take a look at the always Conservative-friendly View magazine. Michael Truscello writes

that this bill represents "another case of a Liberal trying to do something that appears meaningful and is wrapped in symbolically progressive gestures, but in reality just distracts from more

important issues."

I would think that a progressive Liberal in this House might want to perhaps investigate the unethical behaviour of large corporations or why young men approach

my office with insurance quotes of $6,000 to $10,000 a year. That's a significant price difference from perhaps their sister. Should young women be sharing this burden with young men? I spent this

winter with farmers blocking the 401 and out in front of Queen's Park on cold winter days. They have some very important issues that I wish the members opposite would address in a more serious

way.

Michael Truscello goes on to write, "The best a long-time friend and Scarborough councillor, Michael Thompson, could say about Berardinetti's bill is that it is

a `welcome initiative' but that he thought there were more pressing social issues at Queen's Park. "

There are many non-middle-class women in my riding who cannot afford the clothes and cannot afford to take their clothes to a dry cleaner, period. What does this

do for them? I know it will assist a middle-class MPP to perhaps get fair play at a dry cleaning shop, but what does it do for so many people -- and I'm thinking of some of our rural and northern

ridings and inner-city areas -- who don't go to dry cleaners? We're talking about designer clothes -- I see this in the media -- perhaps manufactured in China or Malaysia or Indonesia. The member

may want to investigate how many pennies a day the young women who are involved in manufacturing those products receive in sweat equity to ship their product to Ontario. That is something the

member may want to consider. I feel that might be something a little more significant than the price of a haircut.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I'm very pleased to rise today to support Bill 182, the Gender-Based Price Discrimination Prohibition Act.

Gender-based pricing is certainly evident in many, many places, and it is so unfortunate that in this year of 2005 we are still discussing the inequalities between genders.

However, Bill 182 is a very important step in closing that gap. If passed, this bill will prohibit price discrimination on the basis of gender. Under this

proposed legislation, a person who believes that they have been discriminated against may file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. This is a very important first step.

But I want to be clear on this. This bill does not prevent price differences. For those services that are based upon cost, or that require more time and effort

to deliver, it understands that service providers may charge more for a service for gender, based on time, effort and money. Therefore, the bill acknowledges that some service providers do charge

more, but they have a very legitimate reason to do so. Service providers should price their services based on the item or service being offered, not gender.

I want to, just for a minute, a personal example. As you can see, I have very short hair, shorter probably than even Lorenzo, the member from Scarborough

Southwest. My husband has longer hair than I do, plus he has a beard and a moustache. My husband pays less money to get his hair cut than I do, and he gets his beard and his moustache trimmed. I'm

out the chair in a shorter time than my husband, yet I pay more. So I don't believe that service was based on time allocation.

Bill 182 also takes into consideration that people who practise gender-based price discrimination may be prosecuted. As the member from Scarborough Southwest has

mentioned, in the House today is Joanne Thomas Yaccato, the owner of a Canadian consulting firm which focuses on gender issues. She has done extensive research on the topic of gender-based pricing.

Her research proves that women pay 30% to 50% more for services and products in Canada. If I had a shirt on today, a beautiful white shirt, that many of you do, with a tie -- and my husband

certainly wears those shirts -- when I go to pick them up at the dry cleaner's, my husband's is about a third of the cost for the same shirt that I'm getting done. That's also not appropriate.

I wanted to give you just a few more examples. I know that there have been some comments made about rural-urban -- I don't know how we can mix this into the

conversation, but we have. Being the member from the most rural riding in the province of Ontario, I'm going to talk about OshKosh. I come from a retailing background and I had a couple of stores

for 10 years. When the children were small, it was always the same price. T-shirts for whatever -- men, boy, girl -- were the same price. With denim overalls, denim jeans, it was always the same

price. So I went on to the OshKosh Web site, and what do you think I found? On that Web site I found that the denim overalls and jeans were the same price. But a white T-shirt -- the same for a man

and woman -- the woman's T-shirt was more money. I just wanted to bring into the conversation that I also went into what one would refer to as workwear around the farm, and this is what I

found.

I'm going to take a little trip down memory lane for a minute. When I was young, when my husband and I were dating, jeans were just coming into fashion -- so

that was just a few scant months ago -- and the only place that you could buy your Levi's were in the men's store. My husband has longer legs than I do, longer hair and longer legs. I would have to

have my jeans shortened, and he would not. I would pay to have mine shortened, but he would not. I just put forward these examples.

But I do believe this bill is very progressive. It responds to the issues. It not only addresses the issue of gender price discrimination, but it also calls for

action. This bill received a tremendous amount of support from both men and women in the province when it was first introduced -- because the sword cuts both ways -- so I want to be clear: I add my

support, and I commend the member from Scarborough Southwest and his spouse on all of the work that they have done. My thanks to you on behalf of one of the genders.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to rise and offer comment on Bill 182 from my colleague from Scarborough Southwest, who I enjoy

working with on the standing committee on government agencies. We missed him yesterday, but I know he was getting prepared for his big day in the Legislature today. Certainly, his bill received

extensive media coverage. In fact, I followed the bill and did a bit of a scan myself. Coverage for this bill was in the UK, across the United States. It certainly has caused some conversation in

the coffee shops and the hair salons across the province. But let me give you a couple of angles that I've heard about.

First, I don't think anybody forces us, whether it be a man or a woman, to use a service or to pay the price for the service. In fact, many women I've spoken to

about this bill quite frankly have found it patronizing. It has at its base an assumption that they're not capable of making a rational decision to pay certain prices.

Mrs. Mitchell: I don't think they get the point of it.

Mr. Hudak: No, I think the women that I've spoken with do get the point, because it does characterize them as dupes in the marketplace who are

unable to get good value for their dollar or to shop around. Maybe others have a different viewpoint on this, but women I've spoken with find the bill patronizing.

Secondly, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has an active caseload of 2,500 in the last fiscal year, the largest caseload in the last five years, and the

caseload gets bigger every year. In fact, when we deal with constituents who are trying to get a case through the Human Rights Commission, it's an average wait of some 11 months. The commission is

by law required to investigate every complaint it receives. So, one wonders. Here are some of the investigations that they've recently reported on their Web site: stopping cases of discrimination

based on sexual orientation; going after cases to stop racial discrimination in the workplace; in housing decisions is one case that they cite. Also, sexual harassment in the workplace is a

predominant aspect of the Human Rights Commission's good work.

I think that we would all probably share the concern that if the Human Rights Commission members are required to investigate charges of differences in prices in

hair salons and particular products, does that take away from priority work like sexual discrimination in the workplace, like racial discrimination in housing decisions or landlord/tenants, sexual

discrimination based on sexual orientation? Should these be the higher priorities and the focus of the Ontario Human Rights Commission?

In the last area tour we did, we did a call around to owners and business operators who would be impacted by this legislation. Hairstyling is one that's often

cited by the government members. I will say, with Dalton McGuinty paying about $50 for his own haircut, maybe he's making great strides in rectifying the price differences in hairstyles between men

and women. But Dalton McGuinty aside, Audrey Kelly, who runs the Renaissance Hair Styling business in Fort Erie, strongly objects to this bill and the implication that she discriminates between men

and women. Erin Grigg, a stylist at Vacci Hairstyling and Esthetics in Beamsville, says that her customers have responded to this bill quite negatively, and they even characterized it as silly --

or "strange priorities," some of her customers have said. Caesar, the owner of Caesar's in Ridgeway, had a similar viewpoint. I'll tell you also that Jan Moore, the owner of Top Hat Cleaners in

Beamsville, says that she doesn't price discriminate, that she charges the same price for the same product. As well, Pike's Dry Cleaners in Fort Erie is, similarly, of that ilk.

In conclusion, I do worry too that these businesses, which are predominantly run by women: the hair salons, the esthetics shops, the dry cleaners that we spoke

with, almost all women -- does this bill actually discriminate against those owners as well?

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'll be saving a couple of minutes for my colleague from Niagara Centre, whom I'm sure you're all dying

to hear from, as the fashion plate of the Legislature. Remember the day he walked in here in a tuxedo? But that was rented, so he didn't have to go out and pay for that.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Borrowed.

Ms. Churley: Borrowed.

I'm happy to see that some male members of the media are here today, Robert Benzie from the Star and Lee Greenberg from the Post, right?

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): The Citizen.

Ms. Churley: The Citizen -- sorry about that. I know what they're worried about. They're worried that what this bill might do is actually jack

up prices now, that instead of coming down for women, it might go the other way and prices for men might go up. Isn't that what you're worried about? They're nodding. That's why they're here

today.

Mr. Kormos: Do you mean this haircut is going to cost me $40?

Ms. Churley: The cost of Peter Kormos's haircut -- look at that hair -- might go up to the same as mine. And look at this hair. I mean, it

doesn't take long to do. Well, I'll just let you judge for yourselves.

I noticed that the member for Scarborough Southwest is well turned out today in his Armani suit.

Mr. Berardinetti: No.

Ms. Churley: It's not an Armani suit? Well, I tried to find one of my more expensive suits to put on today.

Mr. Kormos: Is it Armani?

Ms. Churley: No, it's not Armani. I can't afford Armani.

It's good that this bill is here before us today, because it raises awareness. It has titillated the media a bit. They've written a lot about it. It's an

interesting subject, but it's also very true. It's not news, in the sense that those of us who have been shopping for many years and have been around and have been married a bit longer --

congratulations to the member, by the way, and to his wife, who is here with him today.

Mr. Kormos: Who's the real author of this bill?

Ms. Churley: That's right -- the real author.

There are students here today. I'm sure they know that girls pay more for their clothes than guys do. That's what this bill today is all about, to try to

change that. However, it's more of a public awareness effort. This has been around for some time. We're all aware of it.

However, having people go to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to have their case dealt with -- although I disagree with Tim Hudak that we feel patronized by

that. Let me tell you, as a strong feminist, I often feel patronized in many ways, but I don't feel patronized whatsoever to have a bill before us that says this discrimination should end. This is

very clearly discrimination in the marketplace, and not just in term of clothing.

You may know that on March 8, 2002, on International's Women's Day, I brought forward a "stamp out the tax" bill. This was a bill to get rid of the GST from

feminine hygiene products. I'm still on the case, still after the federal government. I would like to see everybody here get on the bandwagon for that one as well. It is a real discriminatory

measure. It is women being taxed for being women. When you add up the cost to families, if you have a mom and four daughters or whatever, it's thousands of dollars. That's another example of

marketplace discrimination against women.

Of course, there are other kinds of discrimination against women, some of which we've been dealing with in this House, such as equal pay for equal value. We're

still a long way behind. Women still make 80 cents on the dollar, or whatever it is, that men make. Then there is the card-based certification bill. What bill was that?

Mr. Kormos: Bill 144.

Ms. Churley: The NDP voted against Bill 144 because it was the Liberals bringing in a bill that actually discriminates against women -- also

new Canadians, but by and large, women. Women who work in certain workplaces are left out of that bill. It mostly applies, I believe, to the carpenters' union. Is that correct?

Mr. Kormos: The building trades.

Ms. Churley: Building trades, which are mostly men. God bless. No problem. We want them to have it; we want all the rights that the Tories

took away given back to workers. But the bill applies only to workplaces that consist mostly of men.

So we still have all kinds of discrimination in the marketplace in general and in this Legislature. I raise all the time the fact that despite some efforts,

certainly by our party, we need to have an affirmative action program to get more women into politics. On the whole, we certainly do better than the other parties. We're fighting to have

proportional representation brought in, which will help get more women as representatives in Parliaments across the land. There is discrimination clear across the world in terms of the power

structure, of women making it to the top: the glass ceiling, not just in politics but in the workplace.

So when any bill comes before us that deals with any aspect of discrimination against women, whether in the marketplace or overall, I'm happy to see it. I

welcome it and I certainly will be voting in support of it.

Now, I do have to say, as I said at the beginning, that I don't think it is really going to make a huge difference in the marketplace. I believe a similar

consumer protection law has been on the books since January 1, 1996, in California. A study was done recently on how well that's working, and they found that the legislation is routinely violated

due to a lack of public awareness and a lack of enforcement. And that is the problem here: The bill really doesn't have any teeth. If the government were serious, they'd vote for this bill today

and make sure it would be covered under the Consumer Protection Act and would be given more teeth so there would be some kind of recourse other than to the Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Commission has far, far more serious issues on their plate. They're really backed up and behind

schedule on some of the very serious issues

around sexual harassment in the workplace. That's another area in which I have a private member's bill, to try to get sexual harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, because it

isn't right now. Those complaints go forward to the Human Rights Commission, and they're really backed up on these very critical, important cases. I don't think they're going to have the time to

deal with complaints about this kind of marketplace discrimination.

Having said all that, the reason I'm glad that the bill is before us today is because I am tired of paying more for my clothes than my partner has to pay. I am

tired of paying more to get my hair done than Peter Kormos pays to get his done. I'm not even going to tell you how much it costs to get my hair done. You'd be shocked at how much I'm charged. But

I have the best hairdresser in the world. Hi, James. He's good.

You know what? I'm going to close here. This is what I say to any marketplace people who may be watching this. Some of the dry cleaners, on the environmental

issue, opened up environmentally friendly dry cleaners. They're starting to pop up all over the place and more and more people are starting to use those now; they've established themselves in the

marketplace. To those out there in retail, you make a choice -- today, because of public awareness, I will shop in your store -- and you stop the discrimination in your store against women and sell

clothing to men and women at the same price. I believe this is one of those situations where the marketplace needs to see that they will actually profit by ending discrimination. There's another

idea.

I'm glad that this bill is before us today. Raising public awareness on any issue of discrimination against women is a good thing, and I will be voting for it

today.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I'm honoured to stand today and speak in support of Bill 182,

An Act to prohibit price discrimination on

the basis of gender.

First, before I start talking about the bill, I want to commend the member from Scarborough Southwest for making this bill and introducing it in this House.

Also, I want to commend the people who worked with him behind the scenes -- his wife, Michelle, and also the author of The 80% Minority: Reaching the Real World of Women Consumers -- for doing all

the research concerning discrimination against women.

This issue is not a new issue in our lifetime. There has always been discrimination against women throughout our history. As part of the progress, we've been

fighting along with feminist groups to bring an end to discrimination: the right to elect and to be elected, the right to be in any job like every man, and also to be in any sport if she wishes

to.

Even with all the tremendous work and effort, the world is still controlled by men. What we're talking about today is a real event and truth about the

discrimination between men and women, especially in terms of pricing. When women go to buy the same item, when they go to the hairdresser, when they go to the laundromat, when they go to any spot,

any place, they are being taken advantage of. I believe this bill is a very important step toward correcting and eliminating the discrimination.

I was sad when I heard the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant talking about the bill and saying that he doesn't think it is an important bill to be addressed

in this place. I disagree with him. It's a very important bill and has to be addressed and talked about, especially in this place, in order to make it a law and be enforced to correct long-standing

discrimination against women. I agree with the member from Toronto-Danforth that for a long time there has been discrimination against women, and I support her effort to continue the fight to

correct this.

Today, the member from Scarborough Southwest brings this important issue to this House in order to talk about it and in order to put the mechanism in place to

stop a long era of discrimination against women. The member from Scarborough Southwest spoke eloquently about that issue, and not just in this place, but on many TV and radio stations. Many

newspapers talk about it in London, Toronto, Ottawa, China, Pakistan -- a lot of different papers. This issue brought to life a lot of important concerns about discrimination against women.

Again, I'm honoured to stand up and speak in support. Hopefully, my colleagues from the Conservative Party understand the importance of this issue and will

support the member from Scarborough Southwest.

Mr. Kormos: I appreciate the opportunity. Like my colleague Ms. Churley, I'm going to be supporting the bill. I think it raises an interesting

dilemma for consumers and retailers across the province and across the country.

Look, Mr. Berardinetti, the author -- one has to applaud the clear co-author of this bill, and that's Michelle Berardinetti. They've provided me with a

fascinating book called Balancing Act: A Canadian Woman's Financial Success Guide, written by Joanne Thomas Yaccato. Here it is, Speaker. She's here with Ms. Berardinetti in the visitors' gallery.

In her book, she references a story told by Shaughnessy Cohen, who was a federal member of Parliament from the Windsor area. She passed away, tragically, at a very young age. She tells Ms. Yaccato,

the author of this book, that as a lawyer, where she was buying the court shirts that one buys to wear with the tabs and the gown for Superior Court, there were no women's shirts; you could only

buy men's. There was only one design of these court shirts. You're wearing that sort of shirt right now, Speaker, along with your clerks. But when she took her man's court shirt to the dry cleaner,

she was charged 80 cents more than when a man took the same shirt.

Ms. Churley: She started getting a man to take in her shirts.

Mr. Kormos: So what she started to do was get a male colleague to take her shirts so that he got the men's rates.

That is the clearest-cut discrimination. Quite frankly, that's already dealt with by the Ontario Human Rights Code. It is.

Section 1 of the Human Rights Code

is very clear. I'm not saying that to denigrate or detract from this bill, but that is a clear violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code, because it's not the product; it's the person who's being

discriminated against. The product isn't being discriminated against.

Now, let's deal with haircuts. I've got to tell people, I suppose I could go up to Yorkville Avenue -- and I don't want their BIA calling me or sending nasty

letters. But I could go up to Yorkville Avenue and pay 40, 50 or 60 bucks for a haircut, if I were so inclined. Well, I'm not. If you do, you've got more money than brains. I suppose Hilary Weston

has no qualms about stepping out from Holt Renfrew up there on Bloor Street and trotting up to Yorkville and blowing 100 bucks on a haircut. Steve Baltich in Welland, $8 and a $2 tip, once every

three months, regardless. Whether you're a man or a woman, it's $8 and a $2 tip. Semley Avenue in Welland South, Steve Baltich -- Slavko -- has been doing it for years. If you pay any more than

that, you're a sucker, man or woman.

Look, Armani suits -- go down to Blake's Men'swear on Niagara Street in Welland. They're going to sell you fine, professional clothing, the best ties, two

pairs of trousers with every jacket.

To the author of this bill, Mr. Berardinetti, your mistake was shopping Armani instead of buying Canadian-made. Look, if you want to buy imported Italian,

Gucci, Armani, the whole nine yards -- again, what you do with your money is your business, but I'm telling you, let's shop Canadian for starters. OK?

Let me tell you, you go down to David Chev-Olds in Welland, a unionized car dealership. I've been buying cars from Cathy Robertson there for years and years,

expensive ones and cheap ones. There's no discrimination at David Chev-Olds. Cathy Robertson's going to give you the same good deal, whether you're a man or a woman, and the best deal anywhere. In

the service department, unionized mechanics are going to treat you fairly, charge you the same price, man or woman. That's David Chev-Olds.

Blue Star restaurant, south end of King Street, man or woman, if you get the Ukrainian special -- cabbage rolls, perogies and coleslaw -- you're going to pay

the same price and get the same quality meal.

My concern, to the author of this bill, is that you're shopping in the wrong places. That's my concern. You're a little bit too much carriage trade. Look, go a

little farther west on Bloor Street, down toward Roncesvalles, to some of the ethnic shops out there, some of my Polish and Ukrainian friends. I assure you, you buy your gotchies, and they're going

to be the same price whether they're women's gotchies or men's gotchies.

Ms. Churley: Gucci; not gotchies.

Mr. Kormos: I'm not talking Guccis; I'm talking gotchies now. Do you understand what I'm saying, Mr. Berardinetti?

I look forward to this bill being in committee. I thank Michelle Berardinetti for her astute interest in this area and for her skill at draftspersonship

clearly, because she's done a darned good job of putting together a piece of legislation that warrants committee consideration and also some response from the retail and service industry.

But at the end of the day, if you want to pay the same price for your shirts, whether you're a man or woman, go to Lee Wah Laundry. I just spoke with Mr. Lee,

and he said he doesn't care who brings the shirt in and who wears it. If it's a plain, simple shirt, it's one price. If it's got the pleats, it's another. But it's not based on sexual

discrimination. That's Lee Wah Laundry down on Hellems Avenue, Welland. Remember that one, Mr. Berardinetti.

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): I really do appreciate the tone of this discussion this morning.

I have to say, when I first looked at Bill 182, I was a bit taken aback and I thought, "Well, this is always going to be with us." But when I talked about it

with some folks and read some of the material by Joanne Thomas Yaccato, I thought, "OK, this is so engrained in me that I need to look at it," because if, in California, there's a $1,300-plus

gender tax, there's probably a similar gender tax here that women are paying.

What I want to do is -- to suggest that this phenomenon is part of a much larger picture -- and I think the member for Toronto-Danforth was pointing to that

that this phenomenon is a really part of a picture in which the fashion industry and popular culture all collude and contribute. I want to start with a quote from a study by the Canadian Teachers'

Federation in 1990 called A Cappella. It's a report on the realities, concerns, expectations and barriers experienced by adolescent women in Canada. I'd like to think that between 1990 and now

everything had changed, but in fact it hasn't. In the questionnaire that they did, 48.2% of the girls strongly agreed or agreed that "Being popular is a big worry for me right now." However, 85%

strongly agreed or agreed that they worry a lot about how they look. To quote one child, "Teenage girls are concerned about social issues like drugs but most of the time they worry more about

things that are closer to them, like their looks. I don't think that I know one girl that is satisfied with her looks. That is a big concern. I know people who do such dumb things to look better

(crash diets, for example)."

It's clear that that kind of undermining of self-esteem is going to set up a whole group of people to be taken advantage of. I'm not suggesting that young boys

don't worry about their looks, because of course they do, but I think there's a special phenomenon here with young women.

I want to say that we learn these lessons early. I remember when I was 15 or 16 years old, which is around 1968, and I was shopping for jeans around the same

time Carol Mitchell was shopping for her first pair of jeans. I was the same size as I am now, but I was a sprinter, so my thighs were a bit bigger. When I couldn't find a pair of jeans that I

could comfortably sit down in, I said to the attendant, "I'm having a problem here. I can't find a pair of jeans that I can breathe in," and he said to me, "We're just trying to make the world a

more beautiful place." I will never forget that, because I was not fat; I was not overweight. I was a perfectly normal, healthy 15- or 16-year-old. But that message was, "You're not thin enough.

You're not good enough."

When you undermine people's confidence like that, they'll pay anything, they'll do whatever they have to do, to reach that norm, to conform to that model. I

really think that's what we're dealing with. We're dealing with a group of people who are undermined, and maybe it's because they're focusing on the carriage trade or going to the wrong stores, as

Mr. Kormos suggests, but I think there's something deeper going on here. The point is that that incident was 37 years ago for me, but I believe the retail world and media images pressure young

women to conform, and that's a dangerous thing. What we're seeing in the pricing schedules is the manifestation of that.

We could talk a lot about hair. Frigga Haug did a book called Female Sexualization a number of years ago. Open the

chapter to "The Hair Project." "I remember

people in our street saying, `Such a shame it had to be the boy and not the girl that had naturally curly hair. It doesn't matter so much for a boy, but the girl could have been saved so much work

and money when she got older,'" the assumption being that women are going to have to pay to conform to a norm, that you're going to have to pay to get your face fixed or your hair coloured or your

hair cut just the right way because you've got to conform to a norm that we all know is impossible.

That's the serious underlying issue here, and that is that we, as a society, continue to force young women into a mould that's impossible, and because it's

impossible, because there's that sense of inadequacy that builds up in young women, we have crash diets, plastic surgery, young girls with perfectly beautiful hair colouring their hair. All of

those realities mean that retailers can charge what they want because, "If I just get that shirt, if I just get that hair colour, it's all going to be OK."

So I support the member for Scarborough Southwest. It's not going to solve the problem. Bill 182 wouldn't solve this huge problem, but it's a step, it's an

awareness, it's a reality check on what we're doing to young women in our society.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Berardinetti, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr. Berardinetti: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish I had more than two minutes, but in my short two minutes I will thank those who have spoken

to the bill, those in favour and even those opposed.

Just very quickly to the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, who says that we have more important things to deal with, private members' time is once a week and

we get two bills to deal with Thursday morning. This is the time to fill in the gaps, to fill in the holes. The government is dealing with education; the government is dealing with health care. The

government is dealing with the issues of the day. Private members bring forward issues that are important, and I think this issue is important. If you don't think so, then I respect your view, but

I respectfully disagree with your view.

To the member for Erie-Lincoln, I respect your views as well in many ways. But if you say that the Human Rights Code or the human rights body has no time to

deal with this, it reminds me somewhat of the arguments made in the 1960s, when they were talking about racial discrimination and Kennedy and Johnson were bringing forward legislation to eliminate

discrimination. Arguments were made that, "You know what? Why do we need this legislation? It'll work itself out." But legislation was needed.

I wish we didn't need this legislation here today. I wish that things would work out the way they are supposed to work out. However, there are some -- not all,

but some -- establishments, proprietors, who do discriminate based on gender, and that has to be dealt with. That, unfortunately, has to be dealt with through the legislation that's in front of us

today. Again, I ask for the support of those members who are here today.

The bottom line is this: A dollar in the hands of a man should be worth the same as a dollar in the hands of a woman. The bill makes it absolutely clear that

if more work is required, yes, you do pay more. But if a woman spends 20 minutes in a chair and a man spends 20 minutes in a chair to get their hair cut, the price should be the same. A woman

shouldn't have to go out and shop for her rights; she shouldn't have to go looking throughout Toronto to find a dry cleaner who will give her the same price as a man.

Finally, to the member from Niagara Centre, as far as my own personal wardrobe goes, I own five suits, Mr. Kormos. Three of them I bought in 1997; they last a

long time. And the shirts are J.P. Tilford, made here in Canada.

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

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a resolution which I will move:

In the opinion of this House, the Attorney General should:

(

a) immediately make inquiries of federal correctional officials as to any known or intended residency plans of Karla Homolka;

(

b) immediately convey to the Attorney General of Quebec the recommendation and request of this Legislature to the Attorney General of Quebec that should Karla

Homolka indicate plans to reside in Quebec or not disclose such information that the Attorney General of Quebec invoke

section 810.2 of the Criminal Code prior to her release to seek an order from

the court to protect the public, especially by including a reporting-to-police clause in any recognizance she is required to enter into; and

(

c) immediately seek such an order should no information be known about her post-release residency or the Attorney General of Quebec declines to seek an order

pursuant to

section 810.2 of the Criminal Code, in which case the order sought should include all of a residency restriction, police reporting and electronic monitoring clauses in order to best

assure the protection of the people of Ontario and Canada from this convicted and dangerous killer.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Runciman, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Runciman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity.

I have to say at the outset that I'm somewhat flattered by the fact that I have introduced two resolutions since the provincial election a year and half ago

dealing with criminal justice issues -- one dealing with gunshot wound and knife wound reporting for folks who show up in hospitals, and I think within two or three days the Liberal government

tabled legislation in response to that resolution. I tabled this resolution dealing with Ms. Homolka's pending release from Joliette prison in Quebec, and within days of debating it in this

Legislature, the Attorney General, Mr. Bryant, called a press conference to announce that indeed his officials, crown representatives, are going to go into the province of Quebec to appear before a

provincial court judge, asking for conditions which would apply only in the province of Quebec.

This is passing strange, to say the least. I have significant concerns about the approach of the Ontario government, the announcement made by the minister,

which I think was rushed for political reasons, to try to exercise political one-upmanship, because we are going to be debating a serious and responsible resolution in this Legislature today. For

whatever reasons, the Attorney General, in his effort to build his reputation as a crime fighter, was not content to allow the debate to occur in this Legislature and perhaps beat him to the

punch.

That's truly unfortunate. I think it is an insult to the victims of the Homolka-Bernardo horrific crimes. In my view, it may jeopardize meaningful efforts to

place constraints on Ms. Homolka. There's a whole series of issues surrounding this, and I found Mr. Bryant's announcement very curious: sending Ontario officials into Quebec to make this

application before a Quebec judge, to place constraints upon her in Quebec. That should strike anyone as unusual. If you know the attitude of the Quebec government on virtually every other issue

where it involves their jurisdiction, we know they are very protective.

I made some efforts in the last few days to contact Quebec officials to try to get a better understanding of why this is being approached from Ontario with

what Mr. Bryant suggests is their complete support. Finally, a friend of mine, who is a member of the Quebec assembly, spoke to the justice minister in Quebec yesterday -- this is two days after

Mr. Bryant's announcement -- and asked him about this, about why they are agreeing to this. The justice minister didn't know anything about it. He had never been contacted by the Attorney General.

He didn't know about it. Two days after a press conference in this building saying that we're sending crown officials into Quebec, the Quebec justice minister had never been contacted.

If you read the Criminal Code,

section 810, it clearly specifies that any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit a serious

personal injury offence as defined in the

section may, with the consent of the Attorney General, lay an information before a provincial court judge -- with the consent of the Attorney General. That

would be the Attorney General in the province in which the application is being put forward. And here we have the Attorney General in the province who has not even been contacted, but the minister

is making an announcement that he's going into the province and that his officials are going to do this.

That should concern us all. I think it has the potential to jeopardize any meaningful constraints if they are going to try to appear before a court without the

consent. They may ultimately get the consent -- I don't know -- but I think it certainly highlights the fact that the Attorney General rushed into this exercise for political reasons. I think we

should all be concerned about that effort on his part.

Yesterday, I talked to Alan Cairns, the crime reporter at the Toronto Sun, and Paul Cherry, the crime reporter at the Montreal Gazette, and they hadn't had

recent updates. This was prior to my contact with the Quebec justice minister. They said that as of three weeks ago, they talked to officials in Quebec -- both Cairns and Paul Cherry -- and Quebec

officials didn't know anything about this. So I think that we should all be concerned about what is happening here.

This is also a very tricky jurisdictional question. I mentioned that Quebec is traditionally very protective. I think there are other areas that we should be

expressing concern about here. I don't have a lot of time. There's a very serious issue with a pedophile coming into Ontario -- not into Quebec but into Ontario -- which I have not heard the

Attorney General speaking about. He has admitted up to 100 sexual assaults on children.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): An incorrigible.

Mr. Runciman: An incorrigible and untreatable pedophile. He's coming into Ontario, but Mr. Bryant, because he can get the cameras with respect

to Karla Homolka, has made an announcement that he's going to cross the border without the knowledge of Quebec officials and deal with Ms. Homolka.

My resolution is talking about working with Quebec to help those officials bring an 810 application -- a supportive role, which we should be playing -- and

engaging the victims, the victims' counsel and certainly the police agencies that conducted the investigations into this matter. But that's not happening.

One of my colleagues will talk about what's really happening in this government. They've closed down the victims' office and fired the most prominent victim

advocates in this country, Sharon Rosenfeldt and Pricilla de Villiers -- fired, kicked out by the Liberal government. They've shut down the Ontario Crime Control Commission but kept a false front.

They've shut down Project Turnaround for young offenders, one of the most effective efforts to turn around young offenders in this country's history. They have done nothing to deal with the

overcrowding situation in the remand centres in this province, where very serious people are getting three for one when it comes to sentencing. Those are issues that they have done absolutely

nothing about.

I have a few minutes to talk about Ms. Homolka, and we certainly express our continuing support for the victims of the crimes of Ms. Homolka and her husband,

Mr. Bernardo: the Mahaffy family, the French family and, of course, we cannot forget Tammy Homolka, Ms. Homolka's sister, who also had a violent death as a result of the actions of Ms. Homolka and

her husband.

There are a number of things. Justice Galligan reviewed the plea bargain agreement, and I think the Attorney General of Ontario, if he's serious about dealing

with this issue from an Ontario perspective, should review Justice Galligan's report. I think there are opportunities in that report that could be pursued.

If you look at the plea bargain itself, there is a reference in it to Ms. Homolka's commitment to only tell the truth. It's signed by our good friend Murray

Segal, who is a director in the Ministry of the Attorney General. I believe Murray is still with the ministry.

In his letter to Ms. Homolka's counsel: "Your client need provide sworn testimony in any and all proceedings to which she is subpoenaed by the crown arising

from her cautioned statements and she will tell the truth."

That's part of the agreement. We know she didn't tell the truth. We can thank Ken Murray. I'll have some reference to Mr. Bernardo's lawyer, Ken Murray.

Justice Galligan indicates that the plea bargain did not contain any references to immunity from prosecution for perjury. I think we should pursue that. We

should consider that seriously. It also did not provide immunity with respect to a very serious sexual assault, which is described as a Jane Doe, on June 7, 1991. That was not part of the plea

agreement. Those are opportunities, I believe, for the Attorney General to pursue. In consideration of the victims, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, he should pursue those very vigorously.

I want to mention Mr. Bernardo's lawyer, Ken Murray, as well. This guy got off scot-free. It's a shameful situation where there was a significant investigation

by the OPP. Mr. Murray, Bernardo's lawyer, who concealed these tapes from officials, was charged with obstruction of justice by the OPP. The courts let him off. That is shameful. Then the law

society let him walk away from this. This man, to my knowledge, is still practising law in the province of Ontario. I don't know if we can revisit that, but if there's any way we possibly can

revisit it and remove this man's licence, we should be doing it.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Kormos: I rise to speak to this resolution and in support of it. I want to commend the member from Leeds-Grenville, Mr. Runciman, for

putting this matter on the order paper. I have no doubt that Mr. Runciman, having served notice of this motion, did a great deal to prompt the Attorney General and his ministry here in the province

of Ontario to move, as they stated they have, with respect to the pursuit of a

section 810.2 application with respect to Homolka.

I am, however, shocked, as all of us should be, to learn from Mr. Runciman today that the announcements that were made by this government and its Attorney

General with respect to the pursuit of a

section 810.2 recognizance are for all intents and purposes news to the authorities in Quebec. We had every indication -- it wasn't suggested; it was stated

overtly -- that the Attorney General was going to have some of its lawyers called to the bar in Quebec for the specific purpose of participating in this application, but where the origins of the

application clearly have to come from the Quebec counterpart of our Ministry of the Attorney General and its crown attorneys. So that betrays the announcement earlier this week as being perhaps a

little more spin than substance, and that should be of great concern to all of us.

Mr. Runciman is quite correct about the fact that Homolka isn't the only dangerous, predatory, convicted criminal to be released from jail and possibly coming

to communities here in the province of Ontario -- quite frankly, anywhere in Canada, for that matter.

My concern is that there is precious little case law around 810.2 applications. One of the explanations that's offered up is that we don't have -- I've asked

the Ministry of the Attorney General to give me hard numbers on how many of these applications have been made since

section 810.2 was brought into the Criminal Code. I haven't received an answer

from the Ministry of the Attorney General yet. I don't want to pre-judge the matter, but my suspicion is that it's because they're not all that common. And maybe that's just as well, maybe they

should be preserved for the extraordinary case, but if Homolka isn't an extraordinary case, then none is. There is a paucity of case law, and one explanation that's given is that

section 810.2

You read, as I did, the commentary of two very, very competent Toronto lawyers. One indicated that any good defence counsel -- and I'm paraphrasing here --

would have little problem defending Homolka in the context of this application. Another equally competent lawyer, one who I know and for whom I have a great regard, indicated that it should be a

slam dunk to get a recognizance. But the fact is, and as I have indicated, a valiant effort on the part of the Attorney General notwithstanding, it's still a matter of the appropriate court

applying the law, and it's not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination.

You also have to understand that

section 810.2 -- and it's not the Attorney General's fault -- restricts any recognizance to a maximum of 12 months. Of course,

the Attorney General would respond that the Attorney General can go back to the well, back to the court, for another 12 months and another 12 months. But again, not wanting to pre-judge and just

speculating, there may be a point at which a judge says, "No, the crown has exhausted its opportunities," depending upon the circumstances of the service of that previous 12-month recognizance, in

this instance, by Homolka.

People in this province, people across Canada, deserve to be protected -- in my view, have a right to be protected -- from the likes of Homolka. If in fact the

Attorney General is frustrated by the limited tools available to him here in the province of Ontario, I share his frustration. But I will be so bold as to say this: The people in any community

where this convicted and dangerous offender should decide to live have a right to thorough, complete, absolute protection. At the end of the day, a recognizance is but a piece of paper and it's

only as good as the subject of the recognizance's willingness to abide by the terms and/or the ability of the police in that community to supervise that person with respect to the terms of the

recognizance. First and foremost, any recognizance will contain the condition that that person keep the peace and be of good behaviour. That's broad-ranging, but that's where we get into the issue

of the capacity of any given community to supervise the person named in that recognizance to ensure compliance with the recognizance. It is but a piece of paper.

I have concerns, because this Legislature is haunted far too frequently by questions during question period about a dangerous spouse released on a recognizance

after arrest who then attacks his or her -- usually his -- partner again, sometimes murderously. What better way to illustrate that a recognizance -- I mean, those people were out on recognizances

too, a recognizance of bail. It's nothing more than a piece of paper, nothing more than the willingness of the person named in the recognizance to abide by its terms and certainly the capacity of

the community to supervise that person with respect to that recognizance.

It is not partisan to say that we know that police forces across this province, and I dare say probably across the country, are working with persistently and

even increasingly scarce resources in terms of staffing and other tools that are critical to their doing their jobs safely, effectively and efficiently. So I'll be so bold as to say this, and I

don't think it is very bold at all under the circumstances: The people of any community that Ms. Homolka decides to live in upon her release have a right to thorough, complete protection. If that

means an obvious, marked police presence, conducting surveillance of her around the clock, then so be it, because there shouldn't be one of us who has to look into the eyes of the parents of a

child, a young girl, who might become Homolka's next victim.

There will be some who will accuse me, and maybe at the same time Mr. Runciman -- I'm not sure -- of being overly dramatic. I respond by asking people to

simply recall that all-too-recent history of the revelations of the incredible and despicable and atrocious crimes. While our memories may have faded somewhat, the memories of the parents of the

victims of Bernardo and Homolka haven't faded at all and I suspect become more acute as each day passes. Do any of us want to have to look into the eyes of yet another pair of parents of yet

another victim?

During the course of the crown presenting its case in pursuit of a

section 810.2 recognizance, I trust there will be reports of the evidence offered up to

substantiate the federal parole board's opinion that Homolka is an offender -- let me have this right -- "likely to reoffend." That goes beyond mere "not rehabilitated"; it is "likely to reoffend."

How much more notice do we have to have? How many more red flags have to be waved? How many more sirens have to be sounded? How many more alarms have to be rung? The community that is forced to

expend scarce police resources on an effective around-the-clock surveillance of Homolka has to be guaranteed financial assistance from, in my view, both senior levels of government. Protecting

people from Homolka will be an expensive exercise, but it will be an exercise that, in my respectful submission to you, we can't afford not to invest in. We can't afford not to invest in the

exercise of protecting people from this and similar very dangerous, highly predatory, incredibly devious criminals.

The reports we have -- I'm being cautious, because one doesn't want to pre-judge -- are that this Homolka did not participate in any of the rehabilitation

programs available to her during the course of her imprisonment, but for obtaining a bachelor's degree courtesy of the taxpayers of Ontario, when every one of us knows of so many families that

struggle, sometimes unsuccessfully, to get their kids into and through college and university. But the reports we have available to us now are that she didn't participate in one rehabilitation

program while serving in custody.

Look, this isn't somebody who forged a couple of bad cheques and did their three months and is now out. This isn't somebody who got caught up with the wrong

crowd and got involved in stealing cars and did their six months and then got out. This isn't some youthful offender who has since matured and recognized the foolishness of his or her criminal

activity. This is a ruthless, cold-blooded, homicidal, predatory, sociopathic personality who, in my view, deserves nothing but our disdain and who, in my view, has to be contained in the legal

ways permissible so as to prevent her from ever committing another of the atrocities that she admittedly -- she pleaded guilty. She admitted the atrocities that she was guilty of and certainly a

party to.

I look forward to seeing this chamber support this resolution. I believe it then sends a strong, clear message that the pursuit of a

section 810.2 order isn't

the passion of but a crown attorney or a couple of police officers, but is the wish and will of the people of this province.

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): Many people believe that Karla Homolka should never set foot outside of a federal penitentiary. The fact of the

matter is that Homolka has served her sentence and will soon be released. She's served every minute of every hour of every day of her sentence.

However, it is not the intent to permit Karla Homolka to exit prison in a few short weeks only to slip away into the comfort and security of obscurity

somewhere in Canada. The public can rest assured that crown prosecutors are prepared for Ms. Homolka's impending release. The public needs to know that every means possible has been and will be

taken to ensure that their safety and that of their children and families is protected.

Crown prosecutors are seeking now to obtain a strict recognizance order in Quebec under

section 810.2 of the Criminal Code. Such orders generally serve to

place restrictions on where someone can go and with whom they can associate. They have regular reporting requirements on their whereabouts and other activities; these reporting requirements are to

the police. They subject a person to a curfew. They prohibit a person from using alcohol and non-prescription drugs.

The idea is to offer as little opportunity as possible for people like Homolka to reoffend. It is the intention of our prosecutors to seek from the court the

strictest recognizance conditions in order to monitor strictly Karla Homolka.

Some people might be concerned about the apparent limitations of such an order. What if she decides to pick up and move to another part of the country? It's

true that the recognizance order being sought will apply in Quebec, but more importantly, it will serve to keep Karla Homolka from slipping away as soon as she is released from prison. It will also

set in motion an organized system that will remain an ever-watchful eye on her, no matter where she goes.

The government of Ontario has worked diligently and secured the co-operation of every provincial and territorial government in the country in order to monitor

Homolka. The intention is that upon her release she will not simply be able to walk away from prison, never to be heard from again. Our court system is determined to know the whereabouts of Karla

Homolka, no matter where she resides in Canada.

Some people might argue that such measures are overly harsh and even border on harassment. There are grounds, however, to support such actions. Ms. Homolka's

last parole report classified her as a poor risk for early release because she was likely to reoffend. Now, for the time being, she is going to be released from prison. However, should Homolka

breach any of the conditions of her recognizance order, she will be swiftly and vigorously prosecuted and could even end up behind bars again.

Senior crown prosecutors are already seeking restrictions on Karla Homolka. The full co-operation of Quebec prosecutors, with the full assistance of the Quebec

justice minister, has already been secured. This resolution before us this morning is therefore unnecessary and redundant. Further, it's a violation of the legal rule of sub judice, which is a

constitutional convention that holds that elected officials and this Legislature must not prejudice a proceeding before the court by giving direction to the Attorney General, the independent crown

attorneys or the courts. That's what this resolution seeks to do.

In short, this resolution being debated this morning is unnecessary, unconstitutional and improper. I urge members of the House to vote against it, to leave

the matter of Karla Homolka up to the crown prosecutors and the judicial system.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I wish to address this troubling issue, the release of one of Ontario's most notorious sex

offenders and killers. This is a unique situation. It is deserving of unique treatment, and we have to find a unique solution.

As we know, Homolka is slated to be released from Joliette on July 5. There are some in our society who always have had an unfortunate interest in those who

have committed the most horrific of crimes. Usually, however, these offenders are unreachable, whether it be due to the fact that they are either never caught or are locked up for life, or, in the

case of the United States and other countries, are executed.

The Homolka case is different. This is pointed out by Robert Thompson of Syracuse University in an April 9 Toronto Star article: "Her situation is unusual

because it doesn't happen all that often, with spectacularly horrible cases, that the person comes to live on the other side of the bars with us." Here we are, a mere three months before her

release, contemplating just how such a person will soon be unleashed on the people of Canada.

Osgoode Hall law professor Allan Young recently pointed out, "Most people believe that she should either still be in prison or that she poses a risk to the

community." I would add that should she be released July 5, given her reputation, her history, this would make her a risk to herself. By releasing her into the general public, I feel that her life

will also be endangered, given people's revulsion of her crimes.

The National Parole Board underlined the illogic in allowing this killer to go free when they postponed her early release, determining that she was "likely to

commit an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person."

I know these are some of the issues that concern me. My involvement goes back to 1995, when I read a petition in the House to that effect. It was signed by 570

people. I can tell you that that isn't all that people told me. The more vocal, the more incensed, people talked about their concerns for Homolka's release, their concerns not only for their safety

but for her safety.

Attorney General Michael Bryant is telling us, "No matter where she goes, no matter what she does ... we will be one step ahead of her." Well, I say good luck.

Can you ensure that we'll be one step ahead of a sniper, for example, a hired hit man? That could be the reality of what awaits notorious deviants like Homolka once they begin rubbing shoulders

with those that abhor their actions. I ask the Attorney General to find a way. Keep Homolka away from the general public; if anything, for her own safety. Do it.

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on this resolution, which I will be

supporting.

This gives me the opportunity to maybe vent some frustrations that I and my community -- we lived right next door to this. I guess everyone throughout Ontario

and Canada lived next door to this horrific situation.

I can still remember sitting on city council, and we had hundreds of people coming in. In fact, one person in particular, Carolynn Ioannoni, who is a mother of

four children and has become a good friend of mine and now is on city council, brought in petitions galore demanding that there be an investigation done into this agreement. I think it is now

commonly referred to as the devil's agreement or the devil deal that was made, under which she was allowed almost to be set free -- almost; a slight penalty of some sort, maybe a slap on the wrist.

Today, this is where we are. The situation is that she now is going to be allowed to come out on to the streets.

How quickly we have forgotten that all of that took place. In fact, I had the opportunity recently of being given one of the initiating agreements toward this

plea bargaining process that went through. I was sitting, reading it, and was utterly amazed about some of the things that seemed to be agreed to. It is signed by Karel Homolka, Dorothy Homolka,

Karla Leanne Bernardo, and the Attorney General of the day, Geoffrey Hadfield. Some of the things in here are, "That I am to receive sentences totalling 10 years...."; "That the crown will not seek

an increase in the period before" my "eligibility"; "That the crown will write to the parole board, will include a record of my trial proceedings, will indicate my co-operation, remorse, etc. and

will indicate on" my behalf that the crown will "leave the matter of" my release "and/or parole should" it come up "up to the parole board without further comment." I could read on.

It is the devil's deal. In fact, that is where we're sitting right now. We have to deal with a devil's deal that was made that has given this person a slap on

the wrist. She now has the opportunity to come back into society. The fear is that this will continue. There's no question everyone feels that way.

The Attorney General is taking every possible action that he can. I said I'm supporting the resolution. You've heard from the parliamentary assistant that some

of it may be outside of the legal system. Be that as it may, I think that all of us throughout Ontario and Canada are passionate that this woman be watched closely, that she be scrutinized and that

she should have no life as we know it, those of us who are free and have the opportunity to travel around our communities and our country. I'm pleased to stand up to show my support for this

resolution.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise in support of the resolution on behalf of the member from Leeds-Grenville, a resolution that deals with

public safety issues involving such a horrendous case, that over the years has never stopped being in the public eye, a story so horrible, with such a profile in history, that it would be foolish

for us to put our heads in the sand. This case involves serial offender and killer Karla Homolka and her pending release from the Joliette prison in Quebec. I share the concern of my colleague from

Leeds-Grenville that upon her release from prison, Homolka poses a grave risk to our communities. That's why I'm supporting the resolution being debated.

I believe that the government of Ontario must vigorously pursue every legal channel possible to protect the public from Homolka once she's released from prison

in July. It is absolutely imperative that this province do everything possible to guarantee that the public will be safe upon her release, that the strictest conditions and safeguards be put in

place so that, as the minister says, we'll always know where she is and what she's doing. The public deserves the right to feel safe in their homes and on the streets.

There will always be crime, and there will always be victims of crime, but what Homolka and her husband, Bernardo, did was beyond any nightmare anyone could

imagine. I understand that in mid-June, an application will be made before a Quebec provincial court judge to limit Homolka's freedoms under the Criminal Code. But what concerns me most, and has

been mentioned before, is that we're being told there is no guarantee that any restrictions on her daily activities will be granted by the provincial court. That's why I think this resolution is

necessary. It has been 12 years, and we're now faced with the reality that Homolka can walk away from prison. It defies logic that anyone who was involved with and committed a series of brutal

murders such as the ones she was convicted of can be certified as completely rehabilitated, and that she will not offend again.

I again state my support for this resolution, and I implore the provincial Attorney General to fight for public safety by legally requiring Homolka to be

restricted as to where she can go, whom she can associate with, and to enforce curfews and force her to report regularly to the police. It has been discussed very publicly that there are reasonable

grounds to believe that she may harm again. Let us all do what we can to ensure that she can never have the opportunity to do this again. I ask everyone in this Legislature to support this

resolution.

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I am supportive of this resolution, and I'm supportive of any attempt being made, including the work of

the Attorney General, to deal with this matter. And I will not ever say that the member from Niagara Centre is being overly dramatic in this case, because I remember very well the day of Karla

Homolka's trial.

I was an editor in a newsroom in Hamilton, and as a society we had all waited a very long time to hear the details, mostly because none of us could fathom what

those details might be. That day, the agreed statement of fact was read into the record and there was a publication ban slapped on in order to not prejudice the future trial of Paul Bernardo. But

as an editor, our reporter was well within her rights to tell me the details, and that's what she did. I sat under the harsh lights in the newsroom, with the police monitor chattering away behind

me, and for an hour and a half I listened on the phone to the details, from which every fibre of my being recoiled. At midnight, I got into my car and drove for two hours, through the darkness, to

my cottage. I went inside and sat in the chair, facing the window, and stared out into the darkness. I sat there, without moving, all night long and I was searching all night long, through the

horror that I had heard, the unfathomable horror that I had heard, and I was trying in vain to find some shred of salvation, some saving grace, some glimmer of light, and there was none. It was

only darkness -- oppressive, impenetrable darkness.

I thought about the families. I could not imagine how they were even putting one foot in front of the other every day, how they were functioning at all. I

realized they would never, ever again know happiness, that pure, carefree, light-hearted joy that we saw in the pictures of those teenage girls that shone out of their young faces at us from our

television screens for so many months as we waited to learn the details of what happened. I thought, there's always going to be an oppressive shadow, a darkness over them like a low ceiling that

doesn't let you stand up straight, ever. They have been sentenced to life. So I commend the member and the Attorney General for their efforts to keep from all of our lives that shadow, that

unyielding darkness.

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): First of all, at the outset, I want to commend my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville. In the 21 years

I've been in this House, it has been my privilege to stand with him on criminal justice issues. He has been a leader, and a consistent leader, regardless of the six different governments that have

come and gone since he was first elected.

Today, it's no exception that we find ourselves putting not only elements of the criminal justice system on public display with public debate and in effect on

public trial; we're also having to be held accountable for the failure to act on behalf of victims of crime in this province and in our nation.

The context in which I want to place my remarks today in support of this is to remind members that this is not a simple case. It has become more special by the

fact that it seems to be one of the unique cases in Canadian history that seem to get the attention of the public and the attention of those in public life, that enough is enough, that changes have

to be made and that the rights of victims in this province and this country must be respected and they must be understood and they must be fortified with meaningful legislation.

To that end, both my colleague from Leeds-Grenville and I have tabled numerous pieces of legislation. We participated in the national debate on Bill C-55, and

in this province the genesis of that was the brutal abduction, sexual assault and murder of young Christopher Stephenson by an individual who was on early release without any leash whatsoever. This

sexual predator, who was cruising a mall in the city of Toronto looking for his prey, was obviously able to do this on early release. The key point here is "early release." So many of us went to

Ottawa to argue the case for Bill C-55,

section 810.2 of the Criminal Code, that deals with all aspects of corrections and conditional release in our Criminal Code. We fought hard to get that

legislation. When we did that, the first objective was to say that if a judge says that you're guilty and gives you a life sentence, you must stay in prison for life, that life must mean life, the

full term. In this country and in this province, criminals were being released after committing the most horrific crimes, who got off one third automatic, then one third for good behaviour.

Therefore, they only had to serve one third. These were violent sexual offenders. That's why Christopher Stephenson died in our province, in our midst, virtually without any reaction.

It was six or seven years later that a government in this province -- and I'm proud to say that my colleague and I and others were part of the government to

bring in Christopher's Law, to begin a pedophile registry, to start DNA database testing, to do a whole series of pieces of legislation that would better protect the public of Ontario. Now we find

ourselves arguing over a

section of the federal Criminal Code and asking the Attorney General of the day to trigger what amounts to a peace bond, a leash that'll be put on this terrible person,

Karla Homolka, for periods of up to a year that can run concurrently.

We have to ask ourselves, why is it that in the 18 months of the Dalton McGuinty government we can find no instance where this

section has been sought out by

the Attorney General of our province to help protect the citizens of this province from sexual offenders? I can say that on three separate occasions I've raised this issue in the House. I've named

the sexual predators who were on early release. They are, in fact, dumped in the city of Hamilton; it is the preferred dumping ground for sexual offenders out of the federal penal system. The

children in the city of Hamilton and the surrounding communities are at a higher risk than anywhere else because of that fact. People like Roy Green, on his radio show, myself and many others --

Priscilla de Villiers, still Debbie Mahaffy and her voice -- plead with politicians to change the laws. I pleaded with the Attorney General, "Will you please contact the federal government and ask

them to make sure that these pedophiles fill their full term and that we apply this

section to them?" Did I get an answer? No. I was chastised because I was making --

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): What did you guys do?

Mr. Jackson: We went out and created the legislation. We brought in a Victims' Bill of Rights, a victims' justice fund. We brought in

legislation that said that Homolka and Bernardo could not profit from their hideous crimes and make money off them. The member from Ottawa asks, "What has your government done?" You've dismantled

the Office for Victims of Crime; you fired Scott Newark, probably the top legal counsel in North America on these issues; you fired Priscilla de Villiers. That is your record.

When I stood in the House and asked that you provide additional funding for police services, something our government did, to go after pedophiles and seek out

pedophiles and sexual predators on the Internet, the government members made promises to police forces in Hamilton, York, Peel and Halton. Did they honour those promises? No. I've got an order

paper question in right now asking -- this Liberal government brags about having a program that involves the OPP. They turned their backs on the local police forces that are doing the work and

don't resource them; they haven't flowed the dollars. I've asked, "Have you even had a meeting?"

The trouble is, we've got an Attorney General who is the fastest politician I've seen in this House in years to get in front of a TV camera, but when he's

asked by members on all sides of the House if he will act in the best interests of public safety, he's nowhere to be seen. The truth of the matter is, he's busy getting in front of a camera to tell

the Attorney General in Quebec what he should be doing, when he has failed to go before the courts in his own province to protect communities and children from dangerous sexual offenders.

For those of us who fought for years on behalf of the families -- I still maintain a considerable amount of contact with Debbie Mahaffy and her son, Ryan,

constituents of mine; with Priscilla de Villiers, whose daughter, Nina, was sexually assaulted and murdered. These families continue to bear the pain, but what hurts the most -- and everything I've

ever learned about the victims, every single one who has had an opportunity to touch my life -- is that they don't want anyone else to experience what they experienced; they don't want anyone else

to be victimized. The most powerful instruments are to empower the lawmakers and our court system to do what it was designed to do, not to help prove the innocence of a criminal mind -- oh, it does

very well in that department -- but to protect the people of this province.

I want to say to my colleague from Leeds-Grenville, I commend you for bringing this forward. It's unfortunate that the Attorney General is a johnny-come-lately

to these issues, but I want to stand proudly in support of your resolution.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this resolution. I'll be supporting the

resolution today, though I must confess to being somewhat disappointed by the partisan nature of the debate in private members' public business today.

As the member for St. Catharines and a friend of the French family, I remember well the great difficulties that confronted that family. There were many

opportunities to get personal publicity as the member for St. Catharines or to take partisan shots, and I resisted those over the years because I felt it was right to resist them. I remember a

television reporter coming down to ask about something. I had an idea what it was going to be about. When the person asked, I said, "Is this about unemployment in the Niagara region?" I listed

several things. I said, "It's Bernardo, isn't it?" "Yes." I said, "I have nothing to say about Bernardo."

I think it's most unfortunate when these circumstances are exploited. I remember I used to have a headline, when I was over on the other side, when there were

petitions, that said -- I won't hold it up -- "Tories Stand by `Deal with the Devil': Judge's Review Upholds Infamous Homolka Plea Bargain."

The minister at the time, Charles Harnick, a good friend of mine, who was the Attorney General, did not overturn that deal. I could have at the time gone wild

publicly, had press conferences and so on. I think Charles Harnick made a very difficult decision. I respected the fact that he had a very difficult decision to make and that his hands were tied. I

would have preferred to see that deal overturned, and I'm sure those involved with the investigation, if they knew those tapes existed, would never, never have made this deal with Karla Homolka,

who was every bit as guilty, as it turned out, as Paul Bernardo in this particular case.

We have to remember that this person is still a threat to society, that indeed, particularly in tandem with another Paul Bernardo-type of person, she could

definitely present a threat to a community. Yes, there's a lot of attention to this particular person. The crimes were horrendous. It was a traumatic experience for our entire community. Of course,

for the family of Leslie Mahaffy, Doug and Donna French, the family of Kristen French, the children and the family, the relatives and friends, it was a traumatic experience. Every time I see the

names "Bernardo" or "Homolka" listed in a newspaper or covered in a movie or in a book, I become repulsed at hearing those names. I wish we never had to hear them again.

I think our Attorney General has taken some positive action in this regard. I commend him for it. The member for Leeds-Grenville is sincere in these matters,

and he has been for all the years I've known him in the Legislative Assembly. I want to support his resolution because I think he sincerely believes that the action he is advocating is the very

best action to take. I urge the people of this province to boycott any film or book that would enhance the reputation of Bernardo or Homolka.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Runciman, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr. Runciman: I appreciate the input of all members who participated in the debate this morning.

I appreciate the comments of the member from St. Catharines with respect to the partisan nature of the debate, and certainly my concerns that I expressed

earlier about the approach of the Attorney General were not, I don't believe, partisan in any way, shape or form. I have genuine concerns about the fact that this resolution was to be debated

today. There seems to have been a rush to announce other activities on the part of the government prior to this debate occurring. Maybe that's a misinterpretation, but the fact that the Minister of

Justice in Quebec as of yesterday morning was unaware of this effort certainly raises concerns.

With respect to what happened in terms of the plea bargain agreement, the fact that Ms. Homolka only received 12 years on two manslaughter convictions

certainly upsets most Canadians when they look back at it, and the fact that she is now going to be a free woman in a few short weeks -- again, very serious concerns. She is a predator and could

pose a threat to Ontarians in the future, and I think we have to be genuinely concerned about that. I also think that the participation of Mr. Bernardo's lawyer, Ken Murray, in concealing evidence,

which was a significant contributing factor to this plea bargain that was arrived at, should be reviewed, along with the efforts in terms of perjury and the Jane Doe sexual assault in 1991, which

were excluded from the plea bargain agreement.

We always have to ensure that there is every effort on behalf of three young women who lost their lives to this monster couple and their families who have to

live with the brutal reality that this predator will shortly be free. Anything we can do on their behalf, we should do, as an assembly and as a government.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has now expired.

GENDER-BASED

PRICE DISCRIMINATION

PROHIBITION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

INTERDISANT LA DISCRIMINATION

DES PRIX FONDÉE SUR LE SEXE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall deal first with ballot item 59, standing in the name of Mr. Berardinetti.

Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Carried.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I would ask permission to have this bill brought to the standing committee on social

policy.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Berardinetti has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on social policy. Agreed? Agreed.

KARLA HOMOLKA

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item 60, standing in the name of Mr. Runciman.

Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Runciman has moved ballot item 60. All those in favour, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Martiniuk, Gerry

McNeely, Phil

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 45; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion passed.

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

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VOLUNTEERS

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Next week is National Volunteer Week, a time during which we honour and gratefully acknowledge all those

Ontarians whose vital contribution of their time and energy make such a tremendously positive impact on our communities.

National Volunteer Week was first proclaimed in 1943, when women's voluntary services organized special events across Canada to publicly acknowledge the vital

contribution of women to the war effort. Today, more than 6.5 million Canadians contribute more than one billion hours of their time to make a difference to their fellow citizens.

This year's theme of National Volunteer Week is Volunteers Grow Community. It is an appropriate one as volunteering truly does help build vibrant, strong and

prosperous communities. Volunteers serve on boards and committees, organize cultural and recreational activities, support the elderly, provide shelter, counsel youth, coach teams and do much, much

more.

On Monday, I will have the privilege of volunteering myself as I serve an appreciation luncheon every year to the volunteers of the Canadian Red Cross,

Burlington branch, who work tirelessly delivering Meals on Wheels and many other services in our community. Without the invaluable services of our volunteers, many organizations such as the Red

Cross simply could not function.

On behalf of my leader, John Tory, and the Ontario PC caucus, I would like to take this opportunity to salute and to thank our volunteers for all that they do

on our behalf throughout the year. The very best way to show our appreciation for them is to become volunteers ourselves and join their ranks.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to mark the 90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. April 24, 1915, was the start of a

planned and systematic campaign to eradicate the Armenian people from present-day Turkey, the last century's first case of ethnic cleansing. One and a half million Armenian men, women and children

were brutally killed.

At the time the world community, constrained by politics, sat idle and did nothing. Thus, the stage was set for other genocides and human tragedies, such as

the one that occurred in Rwanda in 1994. In fact, upon unveiling his final solution for the Jewish people during the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler noted to his aides that the world would not lift a

finger because, in his words, "Who today remembers the Armenians?"

History has an unfortunate tendency to repeat itself. Perhaps if the rest of the world acknowledged the horrific reality that what happened to the Armenians in

1915 was genocide, it's possible that subsequent genocides might have been averted.

Facts are facts. You cannot have justice without truth. You will not see true healing without full acknowledgement and recognition.

On Sunday, April 17, many of my colleagues from this assembly and I will be in the Armenian Community Centre in Toronto to commemorate the lives lost in this

first genocide of the last century. I urge you and all of us to commemorate this event with the Armenian community in Toronto.

I am proud to be a member of this assembly, which has long spoken out on this issue, and I commend members from all sides of the House who have taken an active

interest in it, particularly the member from Don Valley East, the Honourable David Caplan, and the member from Scarborough-Agincourt, the Honourable Gerry Phillips.

RURAL ONTARIO

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Ontario's tobacco counties are being shortchanged by this government. On March 29, AG Minister

Peters announced that his government would provide $35 million in compensation to Ontario's tobacco farmers, not the $50 million they were expecting. The $15 million is being subtracted and

directed to area municipalities.

Just a few days ago, we learned that this government is now taking back well over $15 million from those very same tobacco municipalities through their Ontario

municipal partnership fund announcement. Brant will see $2.9 million less than they did last year; Elgin, $4.49 million less; Norfolk, a decrease of $7.3 million; Oxford, $979,000 less; and the

town of Tillsonburg will see a decrease of $451,000. This government promised $15 million on one hand, but when you add it up, they took away $16.1 million on the other, through the Ontario

municipal partnership fund. This is the former community reinvestment fund.

After looking at the list of the Ontario municipal partnership fund, a reporter asked me this morning, "Why is this government treating rural Ontario so

poorly?" I cannot help but think the members opposite are either blatantly insensitive or truly fiscally incompetent.

On behalf of tobacco farmers, the tobacco farming communities and the rest of rural Ontario, I ask that the government restore fair and equitable transfer

payments.

VAISAKHI

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Why Guru Jee Ka Call-saw, Why Guru Jee Key Fut-eh.

On behalf of the Ontario NDP caucus and members of the Ontario New Democratic Party, I would like to wish the Sikh community Vaisakhi Luk Luk Va Die -- happy

Vaisakhi.

Today, Sikhs throughout the world are celebrating Vaisakhi, the day their 10th guru, Gobind Singh Jee, created the order of Khalsa. Guru Gobind Singh Jee told

the Khalsa that they needed to have a unique physical identity so that anyone in need of help could ask. The identify includes the five articles of faith that are commonly known as the five Ks: the

kesh, or uncut hair; the kirpan, or ceremonial sword; the kara, the steel bracelet; the kanga, which is a comb; and the kaccha, which is the unique form of underwear.

Sikhism stresses equality of all people regardless of race, religion, culture, gender and economic class. I would think too that that is what we practise here

in Ontario.

Sikh Canadians have contributed greatly to communities from coast to coast, at times surmounting enormous barriers. More importantly, the Sikh community has

helped to build a vibrant and diverse Ontario both economically and socially. Indeed, their involvement in business, education, technology, health care and community service have made this province

a more vibrant place in which all of us may live. Their shared culture of love, acceptance and respect has been expressed through the generosity of their community. Their desire to make Ontario a

better place for everyone is to be applauded.

Please join me in wishing the more 20 million Sikhs worldwide a very happy Vaisakhi.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Opposition members tend to criticize the level of service that Ontarians are receiving in

our hospitals. I'm rising today to say that the McGuinty government's health care program is working. Our health minister, George Smitherman, has stood up for better and improved health care

services for Ontarians. The days of the Harris-Eves government's mismanagement of health care are over.

Yesterday, I went to the Ottawa Riverside hospital to receive health care services. It was my first-ever visit to that hospital, which is not in my riding. The

staff had never seen me before and did not know who I was. I arrived for an early morning appointment and was seen right away by friendly staff. While there was some confusion over my appointment

time, the helpful staff made sure to locate a great doctor within less than a minute, and the situation was cleared up immediately.

I would like to thank Sylvie Philippe, Ghislaine Labine and Claire Bertrand, who greeted me so warmly, and Dr. Blais, who looked after me so well. I would like

to say that the Ottawa Riverside hospital is a five-star hospital, and its health care team and support staff are providing excellent service to the citizens of Ontario. Only after I called back

later to thank them for their efforts did they realize that I'm an MPP.

We are on the right track. Clearly, the McGuinty government's investments in health care are paying off.

REGION OF PEEL

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Do you know what? I have to admit it: We were wrong. We've been saying that we've not seen one single Liberal

ever vote against Dalton McGuinty and the orders from the Premier's office, despite his promise to the contrary. But now one brave member, the member for Brampton Centre, Linda Jeffrey, has said

that she is going to stand against Dalton McGuinty and vote against his plan to restructure the Peel region. Clearly, she is tired of trying to figure out that bouncing-ball policy that has seen

Dalton McGuinty take about six different positions on this issue in the last year alone. In fact, the finance minister, Greg Sorbara, had a different opinion than Dalton McGuinty on this issue. We

will see how he votes. I don't know why they won't stand up to Dalton McGuinty, because Dalton "Muscles" McGuinty, whenever he draws a line in the sand, always backs down. They shouldn't call him

"Muscles;" they should call him "Blinky."

The big question is, where do the members for Brampton-Gore-Malton-Springdale, Dr. Kular, and Brampton West-Mississauga, Mr. Dhillon, stand? This is front-page

news in Peel, and you can't even find these guys commenting on the back page of the newspapers. They're two intelligent members; surely they have an opinion. But what I fear is that "Bruiser" and

"Crusher," Don Guy and David MacNaughton, told them to pipe down, or that Chris "Dr. No" Morley told them not to talk to the press. What I hear, worst of all -- Ms. Jeffrey may not know this yet --

is that Port Colborne's "Polish Hammer," Bob Lopinski, may make a comeback to try to shut down this dissent.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): It is with great pride that I rise in the House today to recognize the unprecedented level of support that our

government is providing to York Central Hospital in the region of York, one of the fastest-growing areas in the province.

I was pleased to attend the announcement this month at York Central Hospital when the Honourable Greg Sorbara, Minister of Finance, announced the final

approval to proceed with phase one of their capital expansion project, news which was enthusiastically received by the hospital board, staff physicians, foundation and donors, and the people of the

region of York, who rely on the hospital for their health care services.

This capital expansion will triple the size of the emergency and diagnostic imaging departments, double the size of the critical care unit, create a

state-of-the-art birthing centre, create negative-pressure rooms for the isolation of highly infectious patients and provide

schedule 1 mental health facilities. The expansion will add 93

in-patient beds to York Central Hospital and add 148,230 square feet to the hospital. This expansion of both space and services will allow for faster patient admission, improved access to emergency

services and will shorten wait times for procedures and diagnostic tests.

To date, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has committed $55.5 million of the total $91.1 million toward the total cost of phase one. The balance of

the funding has been provided by the community, and I want to say thank you to the good work done by the York Central Hospital Foundation in the town of Richmond Hill, which raised the money.

This expansion will create a modern, expanded facility that strengthens health care for region of York residents and build on the investments that our

government has already made at York Central Hospital, including a new CT scanner and a new MRI suite. This is just another example of our government's commitment to making the Ontario health care

system the best in the world. I want to say thank you to the minister.

IMMIGRANTS

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I rise today to commend our government's efforts in eliminating the $23-billion gap that

exists between what Ontario contributes to the federal government and what Ontario gets in return.

Ontarians are proud Canadians. We understand that Ontario is the economic engine of the country, and we accept the responsibility of contributing to the

federation of provinces. Going toward the future, we need to ensure that Ontario can continue to be a solid contributor to Canada. However, we need a fair deal from our federal counterparts.

One specific area where we need more funding is immigration. My riding of Scarborough Southwest is home to thousands of recent immigrants from China, India,

Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Pakistan and other countries, many of whom are trained professionals or tradespeople. Our immigrants need proper settlement assistance to engage them and their families

into the life of our province. To do this, our province needs more than the $819 per immigrant we receive, compared with the $3,806 per immigrant Quebec receives.

Our province's ability to share with the rest of Canada is compromised if we cannot ensure that our immigrants are the most prosperous they can be. The Premier

has asked for a meeting, and the Prime Minister has said he's willing to meet. On the other hand, Jack Layton, leader of the federal NDP, is doing nothing for Ontario. The people of Ontario expect

us to work together to find solutions, and we're looking to work with Ottawa to build a stronger Ontario.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I rise today to raise an issue that is important to all Ontarians. Yesterday, the former

leader of the Reform Party and Mike Harris released a report on health care. The Reform/Common Sense Revolution duo, writing for that left-leaning organization the Fraser Institute, said that the

province should be allowed to privatize health care. Well, Speaker, both you and I know that Mike Harris did his best to take care of Bay Street when he was here. We know how he hurt the people of

this province.

I'm wondering what Mr. Tory has to say about his friends Manning and Harris and their report advocating the privatization of our health care system. If you're

a high-income earner, I guess it's easy to suggest privatization; I guess you can afford to pay. But what if you don't collect a big pension; what if you don't have a high-paying job?

John Tory needs to look seniors and low- and middle-income earners right in the eye and tell them if he shares the views of Mike Harris and Preston Manning.

This past January, Tory told the Guelph Mercury that he would involve the private sector in all government projects, from health care to subway construction.

My questions are these: Does he support the abolition of our valued Canada Health Act? Does he support the privatization of our health care system? Does he

support the Conservative agenda unleashed yesterday? Or will he finally stand up for the people of Ontario and say he supports the Canada Health Act because he not only believes in it but supports

equal access to health care for all Ontarians?

VISITOR

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw attention to the east members' gallery and

introduce Mr. Glen Grunwald, president of the Toronto Board of Trade, making his first visit to the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): It's not a point of order, but he is welcome.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KHALSA DAY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE JOUR DU KHALSA

Mr. Dhillon moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 189,

An Act to proclaim Khalsa Day / Projet de loi 189, Loi proclamant le Jour du Khalsa.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried. Mr. Dhillon?

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): I'm pleased to introduce a bill that would give recognition to Ontario residents of the Sikh

faith who have made and continue to make tremendous contributions to the growth and development of the province of Ontario and of our country. It is important to recognize and celebrate those

contributions. My proposed legislation, if passed, will recognize April 13, the day of establishment of Khalsa, as Khalsa Day in Ontario.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding private

members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The Government House Leader seeks unanimous consent. Is it agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following changes be made to the ballot list of private members'

public business: Mr. Miller and Ms. Scott exchange places in order of precedence such that Ms. Scott assumes ballot item 68 and Mr. Miller assumes ballot item 69; and that pursuant to standing

order 96(g), notice be waived for ballot item 62.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

DEFERRED VOTES

TOBACCO CONTROL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 164,

An Act to rename and amend the Tobacco Control Act, 1994, repeal the Smoking in the Workplace Act

and make complementary amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 164, Loi visant à modifier le

titre et la teneur de la Loi de 1994 sur la réglementation de l'usage du tabac, à

abroger la Loi limitant l'usage du tabac dans les lieux de travail et à apporter des modifications complémentaires à d'autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

The Speaker: Mr. Smitherman has moved second reading of Bill 164.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Chudleigh, Ted

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Munro, Julia

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario G.

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Barrett, Toby

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 55; the nays are 4.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on finance and

economic affairs.

The Speaker: So ordered.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Attorney General. After repeated questions from John Tory, you have no

answers for the people of Bolton as to what action is being taken to prevent a man charged with the first-degree murder of his wife in a school parking lot being allowed to return home on bail. Put

yourself and your family in the place of Bolton residents, having someone charged with murder living just a few feet away from your home. Minister, the bail hearing is Monday. What specifically is

being done to ensure that this man stays in prison pending his trial?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I want to assure

the member and all members of the community affected by this that we are taking all the appropriate steps to do all we can to make the case before the courts in a manner that will ensure the

community is in fact safe. I am not going to make the arguments that the crown will be making before the courts in this chamber because it's not appropriate and because it may prejudice our ability

to make the best case before the court. I can assure the member that we are doing everything we can within our legal means to ensure that this person gets the appropriate treatment by the justice

system. The member knows that I just cannot go any further than that.

Mr. Runciman: The minister doesn't mind making political comments when it suits his political purposes. You have the responsibility to ensure

that people feel safe in their communities, and you are missing in action.

Yesterday, we learned that a career predator, Lawrence Sears, a man convicted of 22 child sex charges, will complete his f