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

June 24, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT (SEXUAL ORIENTATION), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE (ORIENTATION SEXUELLE)

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (TAX EXEMPTIONS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (EXONÉRATION D'IMPÔTS)

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT (SEXUAL ORIENTATION), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE (ORIENTATION SEXUELLE)

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (TAX EXEMPTIONS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (EXONÉRATION D'IMPÔTS)

ZENA AND LEON KOSSAR

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

BEREAN COMMUNITY HOUSING

MATH TREK

ORANGEVILLE KINSMEN

ST THOMAS OF VILLANOVA SECONDARY SCHOOL

BICYCLING SAFETY

CONTINUING EDUCATION AWARDS

GRIMSBY HAPPENING-IN-THE-PARK

BIRTHDAYS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

VISITOR

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

HYDRO RATES

YORK DETENTION CENTRE

GAMBLING

REPORT ON VICTIMS OF ABUSE

HEALTH CARDS

PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE

LAND LEASE COMMUNITIES

LONG-TERM CARE

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

SOCIAL CONTRACT

SENATE OF CANADA

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

CLOSURE OF FISHERIES RESEARCH UNIT

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

GAMBLING

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

VISITOR

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AMENDMENT ACT (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE DURHAM (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON)

506548 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 1993

WOMEN'S COUNSELLING REFERRAL CENTRE ACT, 1993

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF VETERINARY TECHNICIANS ACT, 1993

CITY OF LONDON ACT (COVENT GARDEN MARKET CORPORATION), 1993

KOREAN CANADIAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993

CHUA DI-DA (AMIDATEMPLE) OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

CITY OF LONDON ACT (VITAL SERVICES), 1993

KITCHENER-WATERLOO FOUNDATION ACT, 1993

AGA MING PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993

CITY OF GLOUCESTER ACT, 1993

TOWN OF GRAVENHURST ACT, 1993

JOHN G. TODD AGENCIES LIMITED ACT, 1993

CAMBRIDGE-GUELPH RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

GEORGIAN-SIMCOE RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

PICTON-TRENTON RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

STRATFORD, HURON AND BRUCE RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

WATERLOO-ST JACOBS RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

WAUBAUSHENE RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1993

ROSALIND BLAUER CENTRE FOR CHILD CARE ACT, 1993

CANINDO DEVELOPMENT LIMITED ACT, 1993

P.O.I.N.T. INCORPORATED ACT, 1993

TOWNSHIP OF ATIKOKAN ACT, 1993

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1993

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT, 1993

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ACT, 1993

MARANATHA CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH OF WOODBRIDGE ACT, 1993

OPTIMIST CLUB OF KITCHENER-WATERLOO ACT, 1993

TOWNSHIP OF ALDBOROUGH AND VILLAGE OF RODNEY ACT, 1993

CRUICKSHANK ELDERLY PERSONS CENTRE ACT, 1993

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT (SEXUAL ORIENTATION), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE (ORIENTATION SEXUELLE)

Mr Murphy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 45,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code with respect to Sexual Orientation / Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne en ce qui concerne l'orientation sexuelle.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for St George-St David will have 10 minutes to open up debate, after which every recognized political party in the Legislature will have up to 15 minutes to participate in the debate, after which the honourable member will have two minutes in summation. Mr Murphy has up to 10 minutes.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'm proud to be able to rise in the House today to speak on this bill.

I notice in the House the member for Ottawa Centre. It seems that progress on the issue of rights for gays and lesbians in our society seems to start always with motions by members from the opposition, and I'm proud to be able to continue on the tradition of the member for Ottawa Centre, who moved in committee, I guess it was seven years ago, the amendment at that time to the Human Rights Code to add sexual orientation to parts of the Human Rights Code. I am proud to be able to continue in that tradition by further amending the Human Rights Code in two respects.

The first I think relates to what is probably an oversight in the Human Rights Code, which was that sexual orientation be added as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the harassment provisions of the Human Rights Code.

The second and more important change, I believe, is to take the words "of the opposite sex" out of the definition of "marital status." That will have the effect of advancing the cause of gay and lesbian rights in this province by extending, among other things, benefits into the private sector.

This bill builds on the decision of the human rights tribunal in the Leshner decision, which concluded that the failure to provide benefits to the same-sex partners of employees was discrimination under the charter and that the code contravened the charter because of its failure to provide for it. This is intended to bring that part of the Human Rights Code into line with the

interpretation of the charter and, as a result, this bill will do some significant things.

It will, for example, extend pension, survivor and other benefits to the same-sex partners of all private sector employees. It will ensure that same-sex partners get all employment-related benefits, such as bereavement leave, dental and drug plans and the like, that married couples take for granted. It will protect, as I said, people from harassment in the workplace and elsewhere on grounds of sexual orientation and guarantee same sex couples equal treatment with respect to services, facilities, contracts and accommodation in the public and private sectors.

It also, for example, would prevent landlords from denying same-sex couples available rental accommodation. It is a significant step forward, but I acknowledge that it's only a start and we have further to go.

The question, then, is: Why not more at this point in time? I see in the gallery some representatives of the organization the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario, and I'd like to acknowledge their presence, and I'd like to acknowledge their hard work in moving forward on this issue and forcing the political institutions to advance.

But in the course of trying to achieve some forward movement on this issue, it became clear that this is a bill that could pass this Legislature. I had to make a decision between moving forward with a bill that could pass and moving forward with a bill that I didn't think could pass and made the decision, rightly or wrongly, to proceed with a bill that I thought could make some real achievements in this House, could move forward on the issue of gay and lesbian rights rather than achieve just a pyrrhic victory with a bill that would be defeated and that progress would not be made.

I think back to the by-election, where this issue was a central issue in that campaign, and I talked -- as did, to be fair, the candidates of all the three parties -- about the issue of advancing gay and lesbian rights, about ensuring that the goal is full equality in all ways. That is a goal I continue to believe in, I will continue to fight for: that we need, as a society, to eliminate discrimination in all its forms.

This is one of the most insidious forms, it seems to me, of that discrimination, because, despite the fact that we have amended the Human Rights Code to provide protection, it is still seen in society, I think, as unacceptable. People often find themselves making arguments to justify a position that is not in favour of full equality, going through intellectual gymnastics that I find sometimes difficult to understand.

That being said, in the by-election my leader, Lyn McLeod, made a commitment to extend benefits to the private sector and called on the government to proceed with its review of legislation. This bill does exactly that. What I said in the by-election was that as a private member it's rare to be able to get things through the Legislature and that my role would be to introduce something and try to get the government to act, to move on the commitment it has made as part of its policy platform.

I'm pleased to see the Attorney General here, and I acknowledge the cooperation of the Attorney General. However, I think it's no coincidence that a few days after I introduced this bill there was an announcement to support both what I put forward and to do that review of legislation. I wish it had been done earlier, and I frankly wish it had not been an issue in the campaign, because I believe that justice delayed is justice denied and it should have been done earlier.

But that being said, I'm glad it's proceeding, and I hope that the suggestion by the Attorney General to move this into the Ontario Law Reform Commission is not an attempt to delay but an attempt to move ahead, to really look at how this needs to proceed and that something will be brought forward that we can vote on in this Legislature and approve.

Let me say to the Attorney General that my personal commitment is that if things are brought forward that are further than this bill, I personally will support those provisions. Now, we'll have to discuss those as a caucus, but I know what my view is.

I'd like also to acknowledge that there are some aspects that this bill does not cover. I think, for example, of Alison Kemper, who was the director of the Church Street Community Centre in the riding of St George-St David, who I thought frankly made an eloquent plea for the issue of adoption and who says, I think quite rightly, that she is discriminated against because that is not provided. I acknowledge that. This bill, unfortunately, does not cover that.

But progress is sometimes evolutionary, not revolutionary, in this place. I think part of the purpose of moving forward at this point is to begin the process of educating ourselves, society, each of us in this chamber that progress can be made, should be made, and that some of the fear that is raised in response to moving forward on equality will not be justified, that in essence Ontarians are more tolerant than some people are prepared to admit.

I have travelled across this province both as a private individual and to a certain degree as a public official and I find pleasant the degree to which Ontarians can be tolerant when you talk to them and explain the situation. I think there is more tolerance in society than sometimes we acknowledge and I hope that part of what we can do with this bill and, if it passes, the justice committee or any hearings that the law reform commission does, can be part of the process of education, part of the process of appealing to that sense of fair play that I believe Ontarians have.

Finally, I'd like to also briefly pay tribute to my predecessor in this seat, who did move forward as Attorney General on the motion of the member for Ottawa Centre and provided the first step in the struggle for equality for gays and lesbians: Mr Ian Scott. He was Attorney General at the time and moved forward in the face of some quite vociferous opposition and achieved real progress. We're taking a second step, I hope, today, and I hope that the government will pass this bill, not just in second reading but at third reading, and will build on the strength of the former member of this riding.

I think, to be fair, I should also pay tribute to the former member for St George, a member of the Conservative Party, Susan Fish, who was also a supporter of equality for gays and lesbians. I don't want to make this a partisan issue very much, and I think tribute belongs to everybody, because there have been members as well of the Conservative Party who have been prepared to be progressive and have supported the cause of human rights. I think also of Keith Norton, for example, and Phil Gillies and Larry Grossman, who were prepared to stand up and say, "This is right; we should support it," despite the tide in the other direction of their party.

I believe that when we go out and talk to Ontarians in all three parties we will find that sense of fair play, that sense of justice, and we can convince them to support not only this but once we have this debate and complete that education, we can move forward towards the goal of full equality for gays and lesbians.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'm speaking on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus. I'd like to put a few things on the record and to comment on this bill and on aspects that it pertains to.

First of all, I'd like to make very clear to the House and to all people in Ontario that our party strongly opposes discrimination in every way. This is not just a passing coincidence; it's something that is really implicit in what our party is all about. From discussions with our leader, Mr Harris, this week and with members of our caucus I'm authorized to speak on behalf of our party, hopefully in the context of one that says and means very, very genuinely that we are unequivocally opposed to all forms of discrimination to all people.

As it comes into the whole question of sexual orientation, all the more must we work together to make sure that every effort is made within our society to eliminate and end discrimination in these forms.

Discrimination is as old as time. It's ugly. It's used by the strong or the weak. It's used as a form of intimidation. It's a prey on the vulnerable. It's one of those things that's just one of the very mean-minded things within society. Though no law will ever eliminate discrimination, it begins to establish boundaries and guidelines and gives guidance to people to know that if they trespass those lines they are going to be taken to court; they're going to be dealt with.

So in this impossible world, to have perfect rights and freedoms for all people, at least we in Ontario must set an example through the law that we are going to protect the rights of others.

I'm concerned as well with the way in which all laws are interpreted. You can't perfectly fulfil the intent of the law. We are now seeing, certainly with young people in my community -- and I hear it often -- where there is reverse discrimination. At one time, white people were in the majority. Young whites are alarmed and dismayed at what is happening to them. There has to be balance, there has to be fairness and it has to be reflected in the needs of all people.

I'm particularly pleased that yesterday the member for Willowdale and I brought forward two private members' bills: one amendment, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, which is my bill, and the other one from Mr Harnick, the Civil Rights Protection Act. In both those cases, we have brought in the sense that discrimination, especially as it has to do with hate literature, written, verbal and symbolic in the form of acts of violence against other people.

We want to bring in changes to the Human Rights Code and to the civil code that protect people against any kind of discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap. So our party is on record and very much wants to fight the battle with all others who want to end discrimination.

I am concerned about some of the comments that came out during the election campaign in Mr Murphy's election. I find him more moderate today than during the campaign, but I want to read into the record part of the letter that was written by his leader, Lyn McLeod, on March 24 to Mr Nick Mulé. I have to say that her letter offends me. In fact, I am outraged that the leader of the Liberal Party would make the statement that I am now going to quote into the record. But within the context of the letter, her words are:

"I share your community's anger with...the continued discriminatory position of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party."

I want to comment on that. Politics certainly can be a dirty and foul game, but it's especially offensive when a false or misleading allegation is made. It's especially offensive when a false or a misleading allegation is made during an election campaign, when there is no time to respond. I repeat, the Ontario PC Party is not discriminatory, and we take strong exception to the leader of the Liberal Party trying to put words in our mouths.

Mr David Winninger (London South): Your skin is looking a little thin today.

Mr Cousens: Don't start being offensive.

Any statement by any one of us in public life can be taken out of context. I think it's very important for you to see that the position I am trying to enunciate today is, put it in context and don't assume the worst of all politicians and don't necessarily believe the allegations others might make. I just want to make it very clear that our party has no desire to be part of any system that does discriminate. I personally would not want to be a member of that party nor to be associated with a group that perpetrates that kind of ill feeling, ill will to others.

The bill that's been put forward by Mr Murphy today is really in two parts. I would like very much to go on record again in support of the first part of his bill, where he is calling for freedom from harassment in accommodation and in employment. The question you really ask on the basis of this is, should a person with a sexual orientation be discriminated against where they live or where they work? The answer is, absolutely not.

So as to the first two parts of the bill, if we could vote on them separately, which you cannot do in the kind of time frame in which we're acting, I would vote in favour of those parts of the bill. To me, it's progressive and it understands something of the hardship that is going on within our society and can begin to lead to an elimination of that hardship.

However, the other part of the bill deals with the Liberal Party's efforts to redefine "marriage." Marriage is presently reserved for heterosexual unions. Certainly, if you look at the history of language and tradition, there is a significant meaning to this very special institution known as marriage. I'm concerned that the effort being made by Mr Murphy and the Liberal Party today is that they're taking the word "marriage" and twisting it around to give it a new definition. I think it's very serious to put a new meaning to old terms and old institutions and I am concerned, by doctoring it or changing it, about what will happen with it.

I look at the definition of "marriage," first of all, as it was defined judicially in Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee in 1866:

"Marriage has been well said to be something more than a contract, either religious or civil...to be an institution.... I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others."

In Corbett v Corbett in 1970, Judge Ormrod stated:

"The fundamental purpose of law is the regulation of the relations between persons, and between persons and the state or community...sex is clearly an essential determinant of the relationship called marriage, because it is and always has been recognized as the union of man and woman. It is the institution on which the family is built, and in which the capacity for natural heterosexual intercourse is an essential element. It has, of course, many other characteristics, of which companionship and mutual support is an important one, but the characteristics which distinguish it from all other relationships can only be met by two persons of opposite sex."

Further, "marriage" is defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1961, as: "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife; the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

You look further at the definition of "marriage," and you begin to understand that different religions, Christian, Islamic, Judaism and others, have a very common understanding of marriage where in western societies and other societies, marriage is a concept confined to heterosexual relationships. Clergy -- pastors, rabbis, priests -- are licensed by the province to marry, so it has both a legal and a religious implication, unless of course it is a civil ceremony. By changing the definition of "marriage," it will certainly affect the way in which the Marriage Act is understood and the actions that are being taken by clergy in response to that responsibility.

I'd also like to refer to the judgement by the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) on Layland and Beaulne, March 17, 1993, when Justice James Southey said:

"One of the principal purposes of the institution of marriage is the founding and maintaining of families in which children will be produced and cared for, a procedure which is necessary for the continuance of the species.

"That principal purpose of marriage cannot, as a general rule, be achieved in a homosexual union because of the biological limitations of such a union. It is this reality that is recognized in the limitation of marriage to persons of the opposite sex.

"It is true that some married couples are unable or unwilling to have children, and that the incapacity or willingness to procreate is not a bar to marriage or a ground for divorce. Despite these circumstances in which a marriage will be childless, the institution of marriage is intended by the state, by religions and by society to encourage the procreation of children."

There are a number of questions that are raised by virtue of this bill before the House. It has to do with marriage, the whole family context and the long-term implications.

What is the effect on children in a gay and lesbian home? I don't know. Does society really have the answer to that?

What is the impact on society over the long term as we start redefining fundamental institutions and parts of what our system is all about? What is the long-term implication for society with the follow-through on this bill as marriage is redefined?

And a whole other subject comes into this. What can we do to fight the spread of AIDS? It's now the number one killer in so many cities in the United States. What can we do to fight that? Is there something we can build into certain acts? Are we educating society without incorporating a bias and prejudice?

My concern is that there are many issues around the gay and lesbian community that we have to address. "Marriage" in and of itself is a special word with a specific meaning, and in itself I don't think can be redefined. On the one side, though, the gay and lesbian community wants to see an understanding for the very special relationship that people of the same sex can have.

In talking with them and knowing something of their caring for one another, the long-term commitment, the depth of the relationship, the commitment that they have, it is not for us to set that aside as being anything other than a very significant relationship which should be, in some way, defined and understood by the law.

What does the gay and lesbian community want? They want recognition for that kind of relationship, but they also want to have something of the economic benefits of a family or of a spousal relationship. It has a large economic impact which has to do with pension plans, social benefits, the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income Act, OHIP, social assistance, and it will affect a whole range of laws that make up what Ontario is all about. These are not just small costs, they're hard costs, but I'm saying they should be assessed and appraised.

As the Legislature looks at the whole new issue that has been raised by Mr Murphy in this bill, what we really need to do as a society, when many of these programs are now in question, as they are today, we've got to appreciate the total implications of what this bill means.

I want to raise two points:

Can we not look at having new terminology to describe the very special relationship and liaison that gays and lesbians have, without taking away or changing or redefining the meaning of "marriage" as we've known it? I challenge Mr Murphy, as a lawyer, to look at that as a very meaningful point. I say you are changing something that society has appreciated and understood in one way. To redefine it, as you are through this bill, is taking a step that I find unacceptable.

The second matter that falls into this is, if your bill is really trying to provide special benefits and support for gay and lesbian couples, then let that be a separate issue in which we can look at all the implications, all the costs and all the things that are going to be involved with that. Let's deal with that, and if society has a responsibility in that area, let us sit down and talk about it. Don't try to bring in all the benefits of married couples through the back door. Don't try to develop a policy that has long-term implications to all other parts of the province.

Let's put all the facts on the table as they pertain to this issue. Let's count the cost and let's at the same time try to find a way of building bridges between all of society. Let's take down as many walls as are being put up by human beings and find ways of making sure that we understand each other, that we build bridges of friendship, we build bridges of understanding, we end discrimination and we find a way in which society can work in harmony.

Mr Winninger: I'd certainly like to commend the member for St George-St David for bringing forward Bill 45 today. I also appreciate his expression of his own articles of good faith in supporting this government when it does bring forward its own legislation this fall, which will at a very minimum incorporate the proposals under Bill 45.

I would also support Bill 45 going to a standing committee of this government, because I feel we need to hear from the public of Ontario so that we know whether Bill 45 goes far enough. Some of us think it doesn't go far enough.

Quite frankly, I was surprised that a Liberal member was re-elected in St George-St David. For many years under a Liberal government, there was, as the member has indicated, much talk about taking a positive, forceful thrust in this direction, but the thrust never really materialized.

I recognize that the former Attorney General, Ian Scott, is a man of prodigious intellect and probably one of the finest legal minds in the country -- certainly the case law is replete with reports of his celebrated cases -- yet despite five years in office, no meaningful initiative was taken in this respect. Mr Scott has told people he's the finest Attorney General Ontario ever had. In my respectful submission, the jury may still be out on this point, because certainly Mr Scott never had an NDP Attorney General to compare himself to today.

I would also suggest that I'm perhaps a little disappointed that the bill didn't go further, particularly in light of the letter of Mr Murphy's leader, Lyn McLeod, sent out on March 9, 1993, during the by-election in St George-St David, which certainly suggested to me that there would be a more positive direction coming from this government.

In any event, it was in 1986 that sexual orientation became a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code with regard to certain services, accommodation and employment, thanks to Bill 7 of my colleague the Honourable Evelyn Gigantes, and it was in 1990 that my colleague Frances Lankin, the then Chair of the Management Board, announced in this Legislature that all employee benefits except survivor pension benefits would be available to same-sex partners of public service employees. Since then, our government has made efforts to obtain the consent of the federal government to amend the Pension Act to permit pension rights for same-sex partners.

In any event, the Leshner decision back in September 1992 ordered this government, under the Human Rights Code, to extend survivor pension benefits to same-sex couples. In fact, the government was ordered to rewrite the definition of "marital status" to include same-sex couples. As you know, this government chose not to appeal that decision.

Clearly, when Ontario statutes provide particular treatment or benefits to common-law, opposite-sex couples, denial of equal treatment or benefits to same-sex couples is, prima facie, discriminatory unless it can be saved under

section 1 of the charter, which, as you know, states that justification must be clear and demonstrable in a free and democratic society.

Despite amendments to the code, same-sex couples face many statutory barriers to equality. They are denied rights available to opposite-sex couples. For example, it's difficult for same-sex couples to share responsibility for partners' children. It's difficult to claim compensation or benefits for partners killed or injured in the workplace or as a result of a criminal act. It prohibits certain decisions with regard to medical treatment and funeral arrangements.

There are many existing challenges in the courts and boards and tribunals challenging provincial and federal legislation, including the right to employment benefits, marriage, birth registration, old-age security, survivor pensions, bereavement leave and the right of a same-sex spouse to claim support under the Family Law Act. While court decisions may set a broad direction for reform, they can't substitute for legislative change in such a complex area. Furthermore, resolution on a case-by-case basis may lead to conflicting results, it may involve significant delay and cost, and --

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): How much?

Mr Winninger: My friend from Scarborough asks how much. Well, substantial dollars, which are scarce in today's time of recession.

At the same time, some would like to ensure that, where rights are meted out in the courts, corresponding corollary obligations are also enforced.

So the law must evolve, I feel, to reflect changing concepts of marriage and the family in contemporary society. We must deal with discrimination both in terms of lack of tolerance or acceptance by individuals and organizations. We must change our legal structures accordingly, and institutions of society and government.

For these reasons, I would support Mr Murphy's bill as a first step, because it certainly deals with harassment due to sexual orientation in accommodation and employment, and redefines, moreover, the definition of "spouse" as it is applicable to statutes governed by the Human Rights Code.

There are, as you may know, several other statutes that are not covered under the ambit of the act, and we must look at these as well. We need to move forward by sending this bill to committee, but at the same time we must look at some of the issues that this bill does not address.

I'm pleased that our government is committed to introducing, this fall, progressive legislation that moves forward in a very significant direction that I hope will meet the needs and aspirations of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm pleased to stand in my place today to support this piece of legislation and to congratulate my colleague the member for St George-St David for bringing this forward.

I'd like to say that I'm a little sorry to see the level of the debate on such an important issue, an issue of fairness and equity, deteriorate to such a partisan level. I think this is the type of issue where we should rise above our partisan considerations and not start to criticize other colleagues or other parties for stands they have taken or have not taken.

I feel that we are elected by our constituents to stand in our place and to try to move the benchmarks of society a little further forward so that we can provide a home for all our citizens and to reach out into the community. I know this is very tough stuff, and maybe why we get into that sort of rhetoric is that it is tough stuff to talk about for many of us.

Mr Speaker, just to say to you, I was at a diplomatic dinner the other day. We were talking about tough issues. It's interesting that in the diplomatic community they have another kind of language than other occupations in politics. We have our language and diplomacy; they have their language. In the common vernacular, when we do something that's maybe a little gutsy, diplomats would call that being brave. If you're doing something that's sort of totally foolish, which some people in our business believe in supporting this bill is, they say that's bold, that's a bold move, and they kind of tone these things down.

This is neither really a brave nor a bold thing to do; it's just the right thing to do, as Ed Brimley would say on those cereal commercials. It is the right thing to do and I'm glad to stand in my place and to say that. I'd like to mention why, because in this debate we've had many members start, and I'm sure there are going to be more, getting into all sorts of

definitions of what the family is and what a couple is and what a marriage is. For me those sort of comments aren't really what's really important about this.

To me, it's just a matter of equity. It's treating all our citizens fairly in society. I think that many of our problems today in society are such that we're out there and being so cognizant of all our differences and pointing out our differences to each other we're dividing ourselves. What we really need to be starting to do is starting to work towards finding more of those things that we find we have in common if we're really to build a society out there.

We are in a democracy, and democracies are not really about forging laws that just accommodate the majority. In a democracy what we want to do is to make sure that we include everyone who is in our society. We have to make sure that everyone in society feels a part of the whole, and some of us in various regards are different from one another. But we must be able to work towards finding a place for everyone in our society. That means we need to look through our laws and make sure that we expunge those laws and regulations that exclude people from, I guess, just in this case, benefits that most of us take for granted.

What we're really talking about is personal relationships. I think we would all, in our very quiet moments, really accept that the world is quite a lonely place. Because of that, we all seek out companionship and love in this world, and many of us are lucky to have found a partner. My wife, Kathy, and I are lucky to have found ourselves. My wife, Kathy, happens to be of the opposite sex, but for some people, when they find that companion, that person they love, they find that person is not of the opposite sex but of the same sex.

Why is it for me in my right, then, to say to those people who happen to have found somebody they love of the same sex that somehow that's not right and that they should be denied all those regular benefits that I accept from my job here and that my wife shares with me. I don't think we should be excluding those rights and privileges, those benefits that people have bargained for in collective bargaining or derived from their work. I think that's important.

What do we do about this? Do we just say to these folks, "I'm sorry, you don't have rights, you don't have privileges, you don't have access to these benefits"? I don't think so. I think we have to start to move on now and not be judgemental as to whether these types of relationships are right or wrong or normal or parallel our concepts of what family are and what relationships are, but to accept that that is the situation and that these people should not be denied any rights.

In closing, I would just like to say that in many of these issues we kind of forget who we all are, and all of us in society are all from us and our families, and the people that we're talking about today are basically our brothers and our sisters and they're our sons and our daughters. They are us, they are part of our community, and I feel this is important to bring this forward because we need to start to knit society together. We need to include everybody together. We need to include our brothers and sisters and our sons and our daughters.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I want to very quickly thank the member for St George-St David for his motion. I wanted to comment as well on the comments that David Ramsay from Timiskaming has made. I agree with much of what he has said, and I think he needs to be taken in that spirit, because otherwise we will have problems in this House and in the larger society.

I want to say that gay and lesbian people today clearly face discrimination, today and in the past, and I suspect it will continue, both in terms of lack of tolerance, respect or acceptance by other individuals and organizations in society and in the legal structures and institutions of our society and in government. This discrimination has a long history, and it's likely to continue to have a long history unless we, as a government, begin to set the example of how we can deal with this discrimination.

Just this morning, I heard on the news that Athena Cards at Eaton Centre was ordered by the mall management to take down a Lesbian and Gay Pride Day poster because of complaints and concerns about a negative image. That's what I'm talking about. Discrimination is deeply embedded in our society and in the minds of individuals and in our institutions, and unless we show leadership in changing that, it will continue.

I want to acknowledge the motion by the member for St George-St David, because it begins to address the issues of discrimination against gays and lesbians and it will extend the protection from harassment in employment and accommodation to sexual orientation. That's important. Any number of people have talked about that and talked about how we need to continue to look at other laws that discriminate against other individuals.

While on the one hand I want to praise this motion that's before us, I want to urge members to look at what more needs to be done to deal with these issues. What we can't do is to let the courts define social policy in this area. The courts are moving faster than we are as legislators to deal with issues of inequality and to deal with issues of discrimination. We should not allow them to set policy on this matter. We in this Legislature should move faster than they to set policy, and set policy in a way that accommodates all of the issues that need to be dealt with in a way that judges cannot do. Let's not wait for them to change the laws; let us do that in advance of that.

Relationships between gays and lesbians should not be seen as a detriment, should not be seen as something that isn't normal; it should be seen as a part of who we are as human beings, and that I'm no better than they or they better than me. But we need to accept the fact that gays and lesbians exist in society and that is their sexual orientation, and I can't change that nor do I want to change that. Relationships of gays and lesbians and their rights cannot wait. It cannot wait, it affects their lives. So some of us say, "Let's look at it and let's study it." I say, "We can't wait, and let's study it."

I'm waiting very, very anxiously for the bill that will be coming forth from the Attorney General, Marion Boyd from London Centre, because I know it will go farther than what we have here today in terms of protecting rights for gays and lesbians. I say the test for non-discrimination is how far we as legislators can go to change the laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians. When people talk about discrimination, it isn't enough to simply say that the test is, will they support the laws that change discriminatory practices? I'm proud to support this and proud in the future to support laws that will be coming forth from Marion Boyd.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): As the critic for human rights, I'm very proud to stand in my place and to commend my colleague from St George-St David for bringing forth private member's Bill 45.

I will take up from my colleague from the government side who just said, "We can't wait."

I remember in 1986 when Bill 7 was brought forward to the House -- I was then the Minister of Housing -- and discriminating people, about access, because of their sexual orientation was being debated. It wasn't enough, but we couldn't wait. We went forward and we made that law.

I would say to the members too that of course Bill 45, the private member's bill, may not be enough, but we can't wait. I would urge members to support it right through and make sure it becomes law, so of course when the Attorney General introduces her bill we will also advance it more. We just can't wait.

What is this bill asking? It is asking here that the legislation conform with the Charter of Rights. It's asking also, as it said in 1992, in August of last year, that the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Code violates the Charter of Rights, it says they should adhere to that. It's also asking that in September 1992 the human rights tribunal ordered the provincial government to extend the survivors' pension benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees.

But basically, the bill itself asks for maybe a couple of amendments, and the amendments are pretty simple, for sexual orientation. I urge that they protect and advance this bill to make the protection of those people who are being discriminated in that respect.

I'm tempted somehow to get into a longer debate, but my colleague wants to speak too and I want to leave some time for her. I would like to just appeal to all members, all legislators here, not to blame society's ills, society's diseases, whatever is causing that in society, because of gays and lesbians. I was really appalled to know that AIDS is being blamed on the gays and lesbians, as is said by my colleague the Conservative from Markham. I presume we can also say heart disease and asthma is all caused by certain people who are sexually orientated differently.

We are intelligent people. We are here to protect people. This is a human rights issue, and please, let's not be distracted about this, and not blame people for all this. If we do that, what happens? The chicken does come home to roost eventually.

The fact is that disease has no discrimination. It affects all of us. I was very appalled to know that is the approach the member takes.

Human rights is a very important issue today, especially in Canada, especially in a society that is so diverse. People are discriminated for all different reasons, and I ask the members here in the Legislature to look at this. Sure it's not enough, sure it's only the introduction of this bill and the second reading will go, and I ask you all to support it right through to make it law so that when the Attorney General brings forth her legislation, we will look at it in that very intelligent way too to make sure that people are not discriminated in any way possible, because that's what we are here for.

As my colleague from Timiskaming has said, we just cannot in any way feel that we must do the popular thing, but we should do the right thing.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I rise to support the bill put forward by the member for St George-St David. He is to be congratulated. Same-sex spouses ought to have the same rights and obligations as common-law spouses of the opposite sex. Homosexuals must be free from harassment.

We had an incident in my riding of Peterborough a couple of weeks ago at a dance. Several women were assaulted simply because they were gay. The police had to be called in. Yet the incident would not have become known to the general public as a case of gay-bashing if concerned witnesses had not organized a demonstration and made sure that we were all made aware.

Last Sunday, I attended an anti-hate rally in Peterborough. The good attendance was probably partly due to the incident I have described and partly due to the kind of news that we're getting from Germany, Yugoslavia and other places that shows what hate and discrimination do to a society.

Many different groups were represented at this rally, including visible minorities and psychiatric survivors. These groups have one thing in common: Because a label can be attached to them which may have little to do with who they really are as human beings, they can be scapegoated. When life doesn't go well for those who see themselves as regular members of society, they take out their frustration on members of labelled groups.

Our society needs to use the tools available to it to normalize the situation of labelled groups. Fortunately, perceptions have been changing and we have made progress already on many fronts. We are, in many ways, a progressive society but we still have not incorporated in our legislation the realization that homosexual people frequently have lasting spousal relationships.

I disagree with the member for Markham. Such relationships are as meaningful to those as they are to those involved in a regular marriage. They are a stabilizing element in our society and provide mutual support for those involved. They should not be relegated to the fringes of society. They should not have to hide or be ashamed.

The effect of recognizing spousal relationships will allow the strengthening of family links which might otherwise have gone unacknowledged. Let's preserve the family by admitting that families come in many forms. To me, the real tragedy is promiscuity and not sexual orientation.

Someone I knew died recently. He had a long-standing same-sex partner, but this was not indicated in the death notice in the local newspaper. There was no name given of a person to whom condolences could be sent. Exclusion of this kind can only increase suffering. There is no benefit.

I recently read a wonderful book, the Headhunter by Timothy Findley. It is a book about Toronto and the people who live here, about madness, sanity and good and evil, and the labels don't tell us who the good people are. Mr Findley is a great and well-loved Ontarian, and his same-sex relationship with Bill Whitehead is a major part of who he is. Why should we withhold basic rights from people like this?

I support this legislation and the opportunity it presents for public discussion of this issue. I look forward to more comprehensive legislation from the government on this issue in the fall.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I too would like to participate in the debate by beginning with a compliment for my colleague the member for St George-St David, who has presented to this Legislature a bill which is all about ending discrimination and encouraging the NDP government to do what it said it would do and to keep its promise, because there are many in the gay and lesbian community of Ontario who are very disappointed that we haven't seen action from the government on a very clear commitment that it made.

The point I want to make as I say that, and I've been listening very carefully to the debate in the House, is that this really is not a partisan issue. There have been advocates and proponents of ending of discrimination and we've had a long record and history in that tradition from all three parties in this Legislature, and in fact in this country.

If you go back to 1940, actually 1944, it was Conservative Premier George Drew who stood in this very Legislature and said these words, and I quote: "We have a very simple choice to make. When we say that Canada is a land of freedom and equality, we either mean what we say or we do not." That was Conservative Premier George Drew in 1944, and the history of Ontario's leadership in ending discrimination has been an agonizing one, a slow one.

I'm sad to say that as we stand here in 1993, almost 50 years since George Drew stood in this place, we have not made the progress to achieve equality that I think he perhaps had envisioned even in those days. So we have this debate in this Legislature once again.

What has happened since 1944 to today and why are we having this debate again? As I said, it troubles me that people try to paint this as a partisan issue. I want to take issue with my colleague from Markham, because I believe that he is misguided in his view and I don't believe he is speaking on behalf of the Conservative caucus. He may be presenting an individual view, I hope that is the case, because in a recent election campaign the leader of the Conservative caucus was very clear in his support of the extension of same-sex benefits to common-law spouses and to same-sex spouses.

In fact, I have a copy of campaign literature that went out under the name of the candidate Nancy Jackman. The quote from Mike Harris, Ontario PC leader, on her brochure said:

"Nancy Jackman has done more to support policy measures concerning AIDS, same-sex spousal benefits and equity issues than any member of the Liberal-NDP governments of the past eight years." Doesn't that sound like Mike Harris? "I look forward to her continued and direct involvement on these issues as the next MPP for St George-St David." He said that very recently. I know he's disappointed that she's not here.

What's interesting about that campaign is that all three candidates in that by-election had the same support for extension of same-sex spousal benefits as was stated in Ms Jackman's brochure. What we have today is the present member for St George-St David putting that forward in a bill in this House and we have an opportunity in a non-partisan way to see that move forward and become reality in Ontario.

Further in the brochure, I just want to point out, Ms Jackman went on to very clearly say where the Conservative leader came from on this issue. She said:

"My leader, Mike Harris, is encouraging me to work to redefine the term 'spouse' in all legislation. It must include a wider range of individuals in committed, supportive relationships, including same-sex couples. Too many of our families have suffered because governments have not acted to recognize our relationships." She goes on to say in her literature, "I would also press the NDP...." She makes this a non-partisan clarion call in her literature and is very clear about where the Conservative leader stands on this issue.

I believe we cannot allow the courts to set law and policy. That is the role of the Legislature. We have a ruling from the Ontario human rights tribunal ordering the provincial government to make changes in its laws to end discrimination. I call on all members of this House today, by support of this resolution and support of the new member for St George-St David, to take yet one more small step down the road of achieving equality for all, ending an additional example of discrimination in this province.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, I will be supporting this resolution and this bill.

The Acting Speaker: The member for St George-St David has two minutes in summation.

Mr Murphy: I appreciate the interventions and comments from the members for all parties. I think of the member for Markham, a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus, and I'm not sure whether I heard him correctly. If I hear what he's saying, that they're prepared to support the extension of benefits, the extension of rights, the provision of obligations equivalent to marriage, equivalent to common law, provided it's called something else, I don't understand the position, but if that's what they're saying, I'd like to see them introduce a bill to do that. I, of course, would support it absolutely. Maybe that's not what he's saying.

As to the member for Fort York and the member for London South, I'll deal with the member for Fort York first, who says we can't wait. I agree we can't wait. I think it's interesting that the government didn't act until it was told to by the tribunal. If they're prepared to say now that they can't wait, let's go straight to third reading. We don't need to go to committee. Let's go straight to third reading, pass it and make it law now. I'm prepared to do that.

As to the member for London South, to say that no meaningful steps were taken by the Liberal government, that's entirely not the case. It was the Liberal government that passed the amendment to Bill 7, that moved forward with that bill to make progress on this issue. It was the Liberal government, the predecessor member in this very seat, the Honourable Ian Scott, who brought that forward, argued for it and made it happen, and that was a first step and an important step.

This is a second and an important step, and I hope it's not just a commitment to pass it at second reading; let's go straight to third reading. There is a precedent for that happening in this House. My colleague from Mississauga West introduced a private member's bill that went right through to third reading. We could have the obligation to provide those benefits in the private sector tomorrow if this government were prepared to do it. I ask them to do it, and I'd be glad to support it if they did.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member. This completes the time allotted to ballot item number 17, or the second reading of Bill 45, and we will further deal with this bill at 12 o'clock.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (TAX EXEMPTIONS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (EXONÉRATION D'IMPÔTS)

Mr Jordan moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 46,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalités pour prévoir des exonérations d'impôts.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew will have 10 minutes to open up debate, at which point all recognized parties in the Legislature will then have a total of 15 minutes to participate in the debate, then the honourable member from Lanark-Renfrew will have two minutes to sum up.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I first of all would like to draw the attention of this House to the fact that this Bill 46 is not legislation independent by itself. I can best refer to it as enabling legislation.

I have sat on the committee for private bills and regulations now for over two years, and a number of municipalities have come forward with their lawyers and their chief executive officers, along with their member, to present a private bill to exempt a certain museum from property tax. Why we look at the museums is that we look at them as being an educational facility.

I think the municipalities that have come forward individually see them also as educational facilities, and to be taking money from them and applying it to taxation and then trying to raise more money in the community to keep the museum going is a completely inefficient way of managing such an important function in the community as the museum.

Bill 46 will grant the choice to the municipality. The committee on regulations and private bills has been dealing, as I say, with individual municipalities. This enabling legislation will take away that need, relative to museums only. It does not give any blanket authority generally to non-profit organizations within the community. This legislation relates to museums, and museums only, and the Lieutenant Governor has the right to designate the requirements of the museum under

section 9:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the requirements that museums shall meet for the purposes of this section."

Some of my communities are saying, "We at the present time do not feel that we want the museum exempt from municipal and educational tax." That's very good and fine, because they don't have to pass the bylaw under this legislation that would be required to exempt these museums.

In the riding of Lanark-Renfrew, there are 15 museums vital for rural culture and heritage.

To take one, the Victoria School Museum in Carleton Place has educational services including an outreach program called Museum in a Trunk. The people there since 1986 have visited upwards of 10,000 people with Museum in a Trunk to make sure that the educational aspect of that museum is taken to places other than the site at the Victoria School in Carleton Place. The Victoria School itself perhaps would not be there today had not a group of volunteers interested in the heritage of the building and a place for the museum articles and history of Carleton Place and area -- it was their coming together that actually saved the building and brought the museum to one place in Carleton Place.

In the riding of Lanark-Renfrew, going across the towns, the Perth Museum, a nationally designated museum, has four Victorian period rooms and an enclosed garden, and gives an intimate glimpse of the lifestyle of the family in those ages.

Again, I want to point out that this legislation does not stand alone. This is only enabling legislation to enable a municipality to exempt a museum for tax purposes, should that municipality see that it is of benefit to that community and to the people as a whole. This legislation in no way forces the municipality to act, but it does give it the right and it does save it, should it want to act, from coming here to Toronto to present a private bill for exemption of a specific museum.

In the current environment of excessive taxation, it is becoming difficult for the museums to fund their operations, because at present, a good number of the visitors to the museums are families and children from the different schools, starting with grade 1, right through to the grade 13 level. I consulted taxpayers, municipal officials and museum personnel, and there was a very strong consensus that this bill would be an effective means by which communities could choose to enhance local heritage. There was also a consensus that Bill 46 provided a fair approach because decisions would be made locally and would be democratically accountable.

The people in my communities where these 15 museums are have much freer access to the mayor and council than they do to a standing committee here in the Legislature, to have to go to the expense of travelling to Toronto, perhaps bringing their lawyer and a representative of the community to come before the committee to get exemption for a museum.

Bill 46 places the decision-making power in the hands of the people affected by the decision. Instead of shifting another burden upon municipalities, as has been done all too often in recent times, we are this time going to empower local governments. That's the crux of the whole amendment to the act: to empower the local government to exempt museums if that community, the mayor and council, after a presentation from the museum board, sees it as the right thing to do.

I could mention the museum in the town of Smiths Falls, the Rideau Canal Museum. I just spoke with the Premier the other day regarding that museum, which he personally opened a year or so ago and made a considerable contribution, through this government, to that museum. At that time, I believe the Premier gave $250,000 to the Rideau Canal Museum to make sure it was going to be completed properly and be a real landmark in eastern Ontario.

I can say to you today, it is a real landmark in eastern Ontario. It gives the whole history of eastern Ontario in the most modern way. I would certainly invite anyone from this Legislature, if you have the opportunity and you're in the area. I think it's one of the most modern museums and most educational that I have in my riding.

As the Premier pointed out, it's very difficult to have museums self-sustaining financially. It's very few museums that are not of excellent educational value, and they do supplement the schools in the area, and not only the schools in the area, but children come in by bus from good miles away. During the summer, it's a great place for families on vacation to come and give their children a chance to understand the different historic events of eastern Ontario.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): The member for Lanark-Renfrew and I have the privilege of sitting on the same committee, the standing committee on regulations and private bills. As he has so ably pointed out, that committee in fact receives these particular requests from municipalities and other charitable organizations throughout the province on quite a regular basis; in fact, most of the time, I would say probably 90% to 95% of the time, where those organizations meet a set of criteria, they are approved for those exemptions.

So I think it really recognizes the contribution of that particular institution in the case the member has brought forward, museums in our communities, that they be recognized not only for their cultural contribution but the fact that in all likelihood it's public money moving from the municipality to the organization to pay those property taxes, and then it just basically goes back to the municipality. In my other life, I would have said "Peter paying Paul," but you know, that's the way it goes. We try to be a little more formal here.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Betty paying Judy.

Ms Haeck: Oh, okay. Thanks, Gord.

Anyway, the reality is that those are basically the same moneys flowing back and forth, and personally, I really see that the exemption has some value. I know there are some other views out there. Definitely the Fair Tax Commission has some views. Their view is that the municipality should grant the organization in question an ample amount of money to cover the liability of a property tax and therefore offset this liability.

Again, my view is that it's the same money flowing back and forth, so I think we could deal with this kind of issue in the way the member suggests, and if the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Finance, possibly, and some of the other ministries that have some responsibility for these organizations got together and developed a policy that was consistent. That's one of the cruxes in all of this. Any tax policy has to be seen to be fair and consistently applied across the province. This is something that has to be discussed.

The criteria and the framework in which all of this is working has to be hammered out, and everyone who is involved truly has to understand what the obligations are.

I am aware, and I think the member is as well, that definitely within those ministries there has been some discussion from our own committee work in the standing committee on regulations and private bills. There regularly is the admonition from the committee members, and as Chair I don't get involved in those discussions, but I'm interested in their comments, that the ministries should be developing that policy. I have to say to my colleagues on all sides of the House that I heartily concur with their comments.

But I think for the public at large, those folks who may be viewing this morning's proceedings and those who are in the galleries, I did at least want to let them know what the criteria are that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has set forward by which we consider these organizations. So let me just read these five points.

First of all, as the member for Lanark-Renfrew has pointed out, the museum in question should own and occupy the property. They should be a registered charity under the Income Tax Act of Canada. The exemption applies to property taxes and not to other charges such as local improvement charges. The consent of the upper tier -- and let's explain that; I come from the area of the province called the Niagara Peninsula and it has a regional municipal government, so that's the upper tier -- and the school board is to be obtained. The exemption is to be granted through a municipal bylaw.

That, in fact, really and truly means that the municipality has to be on side with this and also come to us as a committee indicating that they are in favour. So I think any organization that goes through this process -- and for some organizations that have come before our committee it has taken at least two years to fulfil all of the obligations, get all of the approvals. It's time-consuming. There is really and truly an accountability framework.

I believe the member has brought forward an important point in our local municipalities and I will be supporting his bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak in favour of this bill, because I very much favour it. I have a very strong belief that we should recognize the municipal governments in this province, being operated by locally elected councils, and give them the authority to make local decisions locally. I'm very pleased to know that the previous Liberal government did in fact have a bill along these lines which was considerably broader, but recognizing the right and indeed the responsibility of locally elected councils to determine local matters.

It would include such things as the matter of the exemption for museums. The member for Lanark-Renfrew, in introducing the bill, made several good points about museums and how tremendously educational they are. That is certainly very true. Having taken the opportunity whenever I'm visiting other parts of the province to go through museums, I am astounded at what is there and indeed I'm always learning something new. Of course, at my age that's not unusual because I haven't seen everything.

The tourism aspect is so important these days. Many municipalities are concentrating on that and museums certainly attract tourists in very great numbers. I would also stress the importance and probably the greatest advantage of having museums, and indeed we should have more, because they save invaluable, irreplaceable artifacts. As you know, many families have collected and saved artifacts through the generations of their families, both while in this country and from other countries that they've emigrated from.

It's awfully important to save those things because many things can be thrown out inadvertently or indeed in order to get rid of them. The museum collectors, curators, know what should be saved and what is used now that will some day become an important artifact. So I think it's very important.

He also mentioned the problem of getting before the regulations and private bills committee. I don't think that's as much of a problem, in my view, but the problem is that an applicant isn't assured of getting approval.

Indeed, yesterday we saw an applicant come forward for an exemption, the humane society of a municipality that operates a haven for stray and lost animals on behalf of the municipality, which met all five criteria to be approved, and lo and behold, what do you suppose happened? The committee refused the application. The government members refused because the representative of the Solicitor General said, "Oh, we want to deal with the whole picture, the whole framework of that." They wouldn't say when they were going to, who's going to do it and whether or not we'd have any input.

But that is the case, and it was the greatest disappointment. So I have no faith in that process. It's seriously shaken at this time.

Coming back to exemption for museums, I think it's necessary. In my own county we have had a recent endowment of a very large collection, the Harrison M. Scheak collection, which must be housed, and if this bill is passed it will give the municipality the opportunity to obtain accommodation for this important collection. Maybe it will be leased accommodation. I don't know how it'll be arranged, but it's the important factor now, and it's a very important collection, antiquities of great value, will bring tourists, will be educational, and I support it completely.

In concluding, I'm very much in favour of this bill and I do thank the member for Lanark-Renfrew for bringing it forward at that time, in view of the fact that the bill of the previous government did not see conclusion to be approved.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm sure that if you were not sitting in the chair today you'd probably like to stand in your own place and support another colleague from eastern Ontario. I know that in your own area of Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville there are a number of museums there as well, and we all know that, particularly in the rural communities, these small museums -- I think of the Osgoode historical museum in the township of Osgoode -- are run by volunteers for the most part, there's a tremendous amount of effort put into it by the community and quite frankly it's very, very difficult for them to make ends meet.

Museums are not visited by huge numbers of people. They have certain people in your community who are interested in that aspect, but over a period of time they serve a tremendous, tremendous resource for the community which perhaps would be forgotten in the long run. Schools take their children to these particular institutions across eastern Ontario and spend half a day or a day at these places and the young children pick up a lot of what happened, not historically in terms of the big picture but in their own local area.

Throughout eastern Ontario, for instance, we have a tremendous number of families who have been there for over 200 years, came across the St Lawrence as United Empire Loyalists, and those names have continued on generation after generation. It's of a great deal of historical importance to the people of eastern Ontario that those ties remain and the knowledge about those ties remains.

I myself am a descendent of a United Empire Loyalist who came across the St Lawrence River from around Albany, New York, in and around about 1780, and throughout eastern Ontario there are people who are associated with my forefathers' names. I'm very much interested that this heritage be protected and that somebody keep track of that and that people are willing to give their time and effort. I think of Elizabeth Stewart, of the township of Osgoode, who's given countless efforts, a former schoolteacher who has put a lot of her life after she retired from teaching into this particular institution in the township of Osgoode.

I want, however, to talk a little bit about the regulations committee, which has dealt with this particular kind of item in the past. As you know, I've been here for 16 years and have had the opportunity to visit that committee; I think I've sat on that committee on one or two occasions over the history of my legislative career.

But I was always amazed that, whether it was our majority government from 1981 to 1985, a majority government of the Liberals from 1987 to 1990 or, now, the majority government of the New Democratic Party that we are now suffering through -- no, I mean that we are now under -- the problem is that members of the committee go into this particular committee dealing with private bills. In general, they have not taken a great deal of interest in them because they are not earth-shattering. What happens to a museum down in Timbuctoo may not be of any importance to a member from the centre of Toronto or whatever.

I'm not alleging that members are negligent or uncaring because they don't know about what's happening down in Lanark or the north part of Lanark or wherever it is, but what I'm saying is that in our day-to-day lives, particularly during these periods of times, there's a lot of stuff on our agenda. Whether or not a museum in Perth is given a tax relief is quite frankly not at the top of every legislator's agenda in this place.

We as legislators walk into that committee and we immediately look to the officials, the bureaucrats, to tell us what to do, and what happens is that the bureaucrats are, in essence, making a political decision. They are making a decision on behalf of Ontario politicians, but, more particularly local politicians who have, in general, requested this change to the law. They have to come down here to Queen's Park in order to get a change.

I think a very important part, particularly for small municipalities -- and I hasten to say to the member who's brought this particular resolution forward that I would imagine in some of his municipalities he has populations of 300 or 400 people who might have a museum. When they come down to Queen's Park or want to give a tax relief to a particular institution like a museum, it's pretty expensive for a small municipality to come down here, to send its representatives, to hire a lawyer, to have the bill printed. A private bill costs something like $800, I believe, the printing costs to the Queen's printer.

By the time you're all finished and it's all done, a municipality can incur expenses of $4,000 to $5,000. For the city of Ottawa, the city of Toronto, the city of Nepean, the large cities, that's really a drop in the bucket. That's not big money for them. The city of Toronto has a budget of $3.5 billion. To say they're concerned about $2,000, $3,000 or $5,000 is not a lot.

But when you talk about some of the areas that Mr Jordan represents and that I represent and that you represent and that Mr Eddy represents, $4,000 or $5,000 is a fair chunk of their budget. It might, in some cases, add up on the mill rate -- I don't know how many points, but they might add up to a certain amount.

The other important part of this is that we have just received, yesterday or the day before, a report by the Sewell commission on planning. I find it ironic that we're talking about a little issue like giving tax relief from property tax for the museum. We say, or the government says, "We want to retain control of that decision at the provincial level," yet Mr Sewell's recommendation within his report is that he wants to devolve all the planning authority on the municipality.

On the one hand we have a decision like deciding, with a little museum, sitting out in the country usually, in many cases an old converted schoolhouse or whatever, "You have to come down to Queen's Park." The provincial government, the provincial bureaucrats, have to occupy their time. I didn't even talk about the cost of the bureaucrats involved in this kind of decision. "You have to come all the way down to Toronto." We make a decision like that, but what we're going to do is we're going to give local municipalities the right to make all of the planning decisions in the future.

To me, there's a tremendous dichotomy in these two kinds of examples of giving autonomy or power to the municipality to make decisions.

If in fact this government follows the Sewell commission and says local municipalities shall have the right to make all planning decisions, of course in accordance with government guidelines, falling in line with county or regional plans and township plans and zoning bylaws etc, but giving what I consider probably the most powerful tool as to the cost of what's going to happen in the future to down at the local level, I find it almost amusing that on the other hand, the province still has to maintain power over what I call tiddly-wink kinds of decisions like deciding whether a museum should be exempt from property tax or shouldn't be exempt from property tax.

I think the other part that we are learning in terms of the evolution of government is that people out there in the community now are saying to us, "We want decisions that can get down as close to the people who are affected as possible." I think that whether it's the NDP government, or a Conservative or a Liberal government, or whoever carries on over the next five or ten years, you will see, I believe, as you read about the evolution of government in the United States and as you read about the evolution of government in Canada, provincial governments, state governments, federal governments, all governments, will try to devolve down to a local level as many of the decision-making powers as possible.

In some of the readings that I have undertaken over the past in terms of reforming government, of reshaping government, of reinventing government, they're even suggesting that some of this decision power go even lower than the municipal level, that it go into the communities, that it be given out to even a lower level of government than local municipalities.

I don't believe this is a huge leap. I think what this government should do is pass this bill.

They should take it into committee and they should say, "We not only want to deal with museums, but we want to maybe deal with a few other things as well." Set out in it what criteria are necessary for a municipality to pass this kind of forgiveness of property tax, and say to the municipality -- balance the law by amendment to Bill 46 to respect the school board, to respect the upper-tier government, so that if in fact there was opposition at those levels, there would be an opportunity for those people to be heard, and the municipality would have to comply with the wishes of those other elected officials.

We heard the government member stand up and say there are six criteria that have to be met, and we have bureaucrats down here at Queen's Park checking to make sure all these criteria are met.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): It was your criteria back in 1985.

Mr Sterling: Oh, I know. We had it back in the early -- the Conservatives had it. The Conservative government is as guilty as the Liberal government and as the present government. It's past time that the provincial government is involved in these piddly-diddly decisions which it is. I agree that the criteria should be fulfilled, but why not put them, as the member has indicated, as regulations under this act, under

section 9 of this bill, that the Lieutenant Governor can set down these criteria. That's what John Sewell's talking about. He's saying, "Let's have the decisions made at the local level on planning matters, under strict guidelines, where it's all outlined clearly so that decisions can be made and can be made fast."

What I'm saying here is that planning decisions are, in a lot of ways, much more important than what Mr Jordan is asking this Legislature to approve, and if we can't hand down this, how are we ever going to hand down planning decisions to local municipalities to make the final decision?

I think this is the right step for government to take, and I predict that if it doesn't happen with Bill 46, it's going to happen in the next year or the next two years because, quite frankly, provincial bureaucrats shouldn't be involved, shouldn't be paid -- we have a crisis at this time. The local people are much better judges of this kind of decision than you and I or any of the other members of this Legislature are, because we don't know what the local situation is.

Therefore, I strongly support Mr Jordan's bill. I hope the government will support it as well and look to improving the bill. I'm sure Mr Jordan is amenable to reasonable amendments to his whole idea. But the principle can be very strongly supported as a devolution of provincial business, to local municipalities, which is no longer needed to be dealt with by the province of Ontario.

Mr White: I have a great deal of agreement with the member opposite. In fact, most of my family, as Mr Sterling's family, comes from eastern Ontario. I believe that it's my great uncle's home which is a museum in Perth. The name of Drummond, of course, is famous from Perthshire in Scotland, but it's the other side of my family that in Ontario comes from Perth. As well, of course, I have relatives who have come from Gananoque, from Otonabee township, all in eastern Ontario, and with my family, my three children, we thoroughly enjoy the many museums, the many repositories of our family and our community's history throughout eastern Ontario.

They are supported very strongly by their communities. These are very important aspects of every community, I would think, in eastern Ontario and in northern Ontario. They are centres where the communities have supported and shown not only what our past was, but also remind us of what is relevant in our present lives of those past lives, and what will continue into the future. Proud traditions, Mr Speaker.

There's no question that I personally, or that our government, our ministries of Culture and Communications and Tourism, all those good governmental ministries, support those museums, and of course my own family connections to his riding. But this bill is not about museums; it's about municipalities; It's about bylaws, tax exemptions.

My friend the member for St Catharines-Brock illustrated the five very straightforward criteria that were set out, I remind Mr Sterling, during his government's time. I won't go into those in great detail, but only indicate that the options a municipality has are very clear. If a municipality wishes to encourage museums in its jurisdiction, it can offer grants in kind, grants that would basically pay back the cost of property taxes that are paid by that institution. It can do that as a matter of a bylaw. It can do that as a matter of an order in that municipal council.

The alternative to that, of course, is, as my friend would suggest, having a bylaw which would exempt it and having enabling power to do so. What would be the essential difference? I would suggest, to that institution, not much. We're talking a dollar from here or a dollar from there. It's the same dollar.

My friend has brought forth legislation which is, by the way, very similar to what the previous Liberal government had brought forward, had on the order paper in 1990. It basically set out those criteria, established those five criteria. Let me go over them and why they are important.

First of all, the organization owns and occupies the property: very simple, very obvious. It's silly to pass legislation or a bylaw that would exempt property or exempt an organization without those two things being common, that the museum is in that specific locality.

The organization is a registered charity under the Income Tax Act: again, very obvious. We have many museums, many facilities, like the Hiram Walker Museum, the Seagram Museum in Waterloo. Should that Seagram Museum, which is an important tourist facility in that community, be exempt? It also very clearly occupies a large space and also very clearly it's part of a commercial organization, part of a commercial concern. The idea is that one visits that facility. It's important to do so. It's important to that community. But it also is a means of ensuring the purchase of Seagram's products, frankly.

So I'm sure my friend wouldn't argue with that point, that it should be a charitable organization.

The exemption should apply to property tax and not to other charges, such as local improvement: fair enough. The consent by the upper tier and the school board has to be obtained: As the former Chair of the regulations and private bills committee, I've certainly seen that happen time and again, where bills are brought forward by a member but the school board or the upper-tier municipality hasn't been involved, hasn't been consulted. It's a one-step shop.

Obviously, if you exempt something from property tax at one level, it has to be exempted at those other levels, at the upper-tier level, that's the regional level or the county level or the district level, or also the school board level. If you have property tax exemption, it's got to be across the board. That has to be secured and the exemption has to be granted through a municipal bylaw. Those are terms which my friend says he'd like to see included in the regulations. Fair enough.

But when that was done in 1990, who objected? The Association of Municipalities of Ontario objected. They thought it was inappropriate to have those kind of exemptions. The Municipal Finance Officers' Association of Ontario also objected. The very organization which represents these municipalities did not like to see these property tax exemptions. There are a number of reasons behind that. We have bonusing, we have other kinds of issues that they might have seen as being of concern. Fair enough. That was 1990; that was three years ago.

But more recently, the property tax working group of the Fair Tax Commission, which is a central thrust to our government and I'm sure something which the member opposite would support, to have an improved property tax system, made the following recommendations: that local governments should not be given discretionary powers to exempt properties -- again, we have the bonusing issue -- but should have the power to provide grants. That's exactly what the Association of Municipalities of Ontario suggested. What a coincidence that we have such unanimity.

There should be a provincial exemption policy in legislation: My friend's policy in regards to museums is an excellent one, but it should be across the board. What should be defined and how should that be done? I would suggest that shouldn't be done in regulation; it should be done through public debate in this Legislature, not in a back-door kind of way after the fact.

We should have

definitions of "cultural facilities" and "recreational facilities" so that those criteria can be met, they can be agreed upon and debated here in this House, not through a back-door procedure. The exemption should be attached to the use of the property rather than the owner. Well, that's the same thing as the criteria I mentioned before.

Since the Fair Tax Commission is expected to report at the end of this year, acting in this way would be, in support of my friend's bill, a way of opposing the introduction of significant reforms to property tax. For those reasons, I think we should do it in a holistic way, we should look at a range of processes, it should be a matter of law not a matter of regulation, and we should have full and open debate and include the municipalities, include the financial officers, include the ratepayers so that everyone would have the opportunity to speak on these important matters and not simply have it through a back-door, regulation means.

For those reasons, while I support fully the intent of my colleague's bill, I have very, very grave difficulty with some of the effects it would have. I would instead urge the members present to look at this kind of bill, these kinds of exemptions, as something that should happen as part of the property tax reform, as part of our Fair Tax Commission's report, and therefore I would urge members present not to support my friend's bill.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Private members' hour frequently, in this House, gives us an opportunity to discuss our philosophical approach to some of the issues for debate that are brought forward by private members. I listened very carefully this morning to my colleagues as they debated and discussed this bill, which would give to local municipalities the right to exempt museums from their property tax base.

For those people who are listening in or who are here in gallery, the way it works today is that the provincial government is the one that has to give any municipal tax exemption. There's a long and complicated, actually very bureaucratic process that agencies or individuals have to go through if they want to either appeal their municipal tax or appeal to the provincial government in order to receive a tax-exempt status. You've heard some of that discussed this morning.

Rather than getting into the nitty-gritty of the discussion of the process, I would like to deal with the philosophy of what should the province of Ontario be doing and what should it not be doing any more. One of the problems we have is that many of the processes and procedures and structures and laws that were set up over many, many years by actually, I would say, primarily Conservative governments -- and I don't say that in a partisan way, but it was the Conservative governments, over 40 years, that set up many of these processes and procedures.

They adopted a philosophical, paternalistic, small-c conservative approach, which said: "We don't trust you municipalities to make these decisions. We will make them for you in Queen's Park."

What this legislation today does is to take one very small step by saying, and this is what my colleague Mr Jordan is saying, "We think municipalities should have the right to make a decision to exempt a museum from their tax base and give them tax-exempt status."

As I debate this, I would like to take a much broader look at this particular issue. I served on a local municipal council for six and a half years, from 1978 until 1985, and I understand the importance of local accountability for local decisions. I also understand the responsibility that municipal councils have today and in fact could have.

It's one of the reasons that I was so pleased in 1990 that the Liberal government at the time, under the Minister of Municipal Affairs, John Sweeney, tabled what was then Bill 229, which in fact gave to the municipal councils the authority, the responsibility, the accountability and effective control over municipal tax bases.

What this legislation, Bill 229, actually did was go much further than what Mr Jordan is suggesting in this legislation today. It took the principle which said, "Local responsibility, local decision-making and local accountability for local issues." This is a philosophical Liberal point of view that I believe, we believe, we believed in 1990 and I know that we still believe today, because our leader, Lyn McLeod, says it everywhere she goes.

We don't believe in one size fits all. We don't believe in command and control government. We believe that local municipal councils know what their municipal tax base has to support. They know and they understand that if they relieve certain non-profit organizations like museums, they will have to spread the cost over the rest of the municipal tax base. There are many, many examples of real unfairness happening in municipalities, but it's very different from one municipality to the next. The local councils are the ones that know how to respond to that and how to respond to it most appropriately.

I used to believe when I was on municipal council that one of the reasons voter turnout was often as low as it was is because the people in the municipalities who were voting for those local councillors didn't believe that any decisions the local municipality made really had any significance, because it could always appeal them to Queen's Park. You saw this in the Planning Act, you saw this in the municipal response to your municipal taxes, all of those sorts of things. There was always an appeal process to the provincial government, which was considered and called the senior level of government.

Those many, many steps often frustrated individuals. They wanted to know: "Who's making the decision? Who's responsible? Whom can I hold accountable and whom can I appeal to for a change?" What they found out was that they were sent frequently in one direction, frequently in another direction, and this kind of finger-pointing, one to the other, tended to drive people at the local municipal level round the bend. I would meet with people who were tremendously frustrated because they couldn't get a straight answer on who was going to make the decision and how this was going to be finalized. They had process after process after process that really ground them down.

Here we have a piece of legislation that says, "Allow municipalities to decide whether or not they want to allow their museums to be tax-exempt." I personally believe that the people, the men and women who are elected to local municipal councils, are fully capable of having the authority and the responsibility to make that decision, not only about museums but about many of the non-profit organizations and agencies supported by government, which they may well want to decide to exempt or not, as the situation arises.

I listened with great interest as my colleague from Durham went on with his list of the other things that municipalities could do in the way of grants in lieu and so forth, and front door and back door analogies, as he announced that he was not going to support local empowerment. He was not going to support local authority, local responsibility. He was not going to support the municipal councils to be able to make sensible decisions about their own municipal tax base.

I was very, very disappointed, although I understand that is part of the NDP ideology and philosophy, which is central command and control. So I am not surprised to see him and other members of his caucus voting against this legislation, which would empower municipalities and see that you had the responsibility and the authority at the right place.

I'm very proud of the fact that our leader, Lyn McLeod, has been saying to people that we Liberals believe that local communities can solve their problems better than people sitting around a table at Queen's Park can. That's as simple as you can state it. The people in the local communities know what's going to make their community work better. They understand what the problems are and they know what the solutions are.

To have someone, whether it is a politician or a bureaucrat, in Queen's Park making a decision -- one size fits all -- and then imposing that on municipalities across the province or putting in place the kind of procedures and processes that are going to frustrate individual taxpayers further leads to the kind of alienation from government that we are all facing today.

We have an opportunity, because this is a debate in principle on a piece of legislation that is just one small step. It does not go as far as Bill 229 went in giving municipalities the local authority and responsibility to make decisions they are fully capable of making. I'm not saying it is without flaws and difficulty, Mr Speaker; it is. But this is a debate in principle, and in order to implement this kind of legislation it will take a study and a look at what the implications are for school boards and upper-tier municipalities. We have a model, a piece of legislation, Bill 229, that solved those problems.

The one thing I've learned from my years here at Queen's Park is that if you set your mind to change, you can change things. You can find all the reasons in the world for not changing anything, but if you decide that you want to reform a system which is simply not working, you can do it. So I take this opportunity to encourage members of government to think about this. I don't believe one size fits all, and I think this piece of legislation as proposed by Mr Jordan, while it is only one small step, is worthy of support in principle.

I hope we will see the government move beyond its ideology. I would ask them to consider, when they talk about partnership with municipalities, that municipalities have elected representatives, representatives who are willing to be responsible and accountable to their electorate, and that this government could stop trying to solve every problem in the Premier's office and let municipalities and the communities of this province get to the table and solve their own problems.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew has two minutes in

summary.

Mr Jordan: The comments from my colleagues I very much appreciate: my colleague from Carleton, my colleagues from Brant-Haldimand and from Durham.

The members have certainly pointed out the need for this bill. They've also pointed out that this bill does not stand alone. It is definitely to be known as enabling legislation. It enables a municipality to pass legislation at that level that would exempt non-profit museums.

As I've stated earlier, across the riding of Lanark-Renfrew we have 15 such museums which do not have the money to come here to Toronto and get a private bill through each time to be able to exempt that museum from tax. These museums, whether it be the Rideau Canal museum, the Smith's Falls Railway Museum, the Perth Museum -- all of these museums are staffed and funded basically by volunteers. Sometimes during the peak season we require staff, that is, paid staff.

I just want to impress on all members this morning that I would like to see this bill pass as enabling legislation to be referred to the committee on general government on second reading. On that basis, then, these minor items of authority and the regulations that will come under the Lieutenant Governor could be looked into.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT (SEXUAL ORIENTATION), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE (ORIENTATION SEXUELLE)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now proceed with ballot item number 17, second reading of Bill 45, Mr Murphy's bill.

Are there any members opposed to having a vote on this bill? If so, please rise. Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of Mr Murphy's bill please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. A five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

The Acting Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to indicate at this time, before a vote is taken on second reading, that it is my intention, regardless of how the vote turns out, to raise whether or not this bill is in order because of the fact of our Constitution not allowing a private member's bill on expenditures from the general revenue fund.

The Acting Speaker: We are now dealing with ballot item number 17, Mr Murphy's Bill 45.

All those in favour of Mr Murphy's bill, please rise and remain standing until identified by the Clerk.

Ayes

Akande, Boyd, Caplan, Carter, Charlton, Churley, Cooper, Curling, Drainville, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Kormos, Kwinter, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, McLeod, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), Murphy, O'Connor, Owens, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Swarbrick, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. All those opposed to Mr Murphy's bill, please rise and remain standing until named by the Clerk.

Nays

Callahan, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Hayes, Jordan, Runciman, Sterling, Tilson, Turnbull, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 43; the nays 13. I therefore declare the bill carried. Shall the bill be ordered for committee of the whole House?

Interjections: Justice committee.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a majority in favour of the justice committee? Agreed. The bill will go to justice.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In view of the comments from the member for Carleton concerning a private member's bill causing the expenditure of funds or a reduction in revenues, I wonder if, while you're looking at Bill 45, which he asked you to do, you'll also look at Bill 46, standing in the name of Mr Jordan, which calls for tax exemptions.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (TAX EXEMPTIONS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (EXONÉRATION D'IMPÔTS)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with ballot item number 18. Are there any members opposed to a vote on ballot item number 18? If so, please stand.

All those in favour of second reading of Mr Jordan's Bill 46 please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for committee of the whole?

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a majority for the general government committee? In my opinion, we do not have a majority. The bill shall therefore be ordered to committee of the whole.

That completes private members' business for this morning. This House will reconvene at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ZENA AND LEON KOSSAR

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Members are undoubtedly aware of the existence this week of the wonderful world of Metro Toronto International Caravan. Indeed, there are only four days left to take in the incredible cultural sights and sounds, tastes and traditions of Caravan.

Caravan was founded 25 years ago by Zena Kossar in order to showcase the various historic and cultural traditions and accomplishments of many of our communities. Since then, Caravan has become a unique nine-day international festival representing over 30 countries and 40 pavilions. But above all Festival Caravan is about our future, as it enhances, prepares and elevates our young people to perform on other stages in the arts, opera, show business, ballet and music.

Today I'm sure members will join me in extending heartfelt congratulations to Zena and Leon Kossar as they celebrate their 25th anniversary of Caravan. Organizing a festival of this magnitude and truly placing the whole world on stage needs boundless energy, patience and certainly a love of people. Our celebrants today are more than deserving of our recognition, since Festival Caravan brings out the best in us, respecting, sharing and caring for each other's cultures. So I say today, Zena and Leon, we are proud of you. Congratulations.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): During a CBC radio interview on April 27, the Minister of Natural Resources said that grants to conservation authorities would be cut by 10%. This statement was blatantly incorrect. Grants were in fact cut by 21.4%.

As illustrated to me by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, the MNR's position is extreme and shortsighted. I wonder if the minister is even aware that the conservation authorities operate according to the calendar year, because they were four months into the fiscal year when the axe fell. They had to slash their budgets by 32% for 1993.

Yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources finally responded, granting the conservation authorities a small concession. They can now use $2 million from their capital budgets to pay property taxes.

Mr Speaker, you and I realize this concession is an inadequate, short-term fix. There is still an outstanding $1.6 million needed to pay taxes, conservation land will still have to be auctioned off and the minister has done nothing to ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive land in the future.

I ask the minister to abide by our resolution, which was passed by this House, to renew the tax rebate and protect land that has been serviced by our local authorities for 50 years.

BEREAN COMMUNITY HOUSING

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Recently I had the honour of participating in a celebration to mark the official opening of Berean Community Housing in Sarnia. This affordable housing project was developed under the federal-provincial non-profit housing program and the Ontario Ministry of Housing is proud to be a financial partner in this program.

But more importantly, these wonderful homes became a reality because of the hard work and dedication of the Sarnia-Lambton Berean Community Housing group. This sponsoring group knew the needs of our community, and their support and efforts have paid off. They have made it possible for 73 individuals or families to live in secure, affordable housing.

This is a lasting investment in our community. This investment has also created jobs in construction and other related industries.

I would like to take this opportunity to again congratulate the members for their hard work and their vision of housing for the people in our community. The Sarnia-Lambton Berean Community Housing group is headed up by President Emerson Turner. I would also like to recognize the architect, J.P. Thompson Associates, and the contractor, D. Grant and Sons, for their important contribution to this impressive development.

I give my very best wishes to the residents of Berean Community Housing and thank them again for allowing me to participate in their celebration.

MATH TREK

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): For some time, teachers and school boards have been under heavy attack by the public for an alleged failure to provide up-to-date education. Today, however, I have a real good-news story that shows how our educators continue to give great leadership in education despite some of the criticism that has been levelled against them. These days, I feel we too often overlook the good work that is being done by our teachers, administrators and trustees.

Two weeks ago, the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board in my area launched a computer software program called Math Trek. Math Trek was developed in partnership with Iconix International, a division of the Unisys computer company.

Board officials say this is the most ambitious software project ever undertaken by a North American school board. It is designed to teach math skills to any student no matter what skill level they're at. So perhaps there's hope for us as well. Students go at their own pace and can repeat questions until they get the right answers. Computer-generated graphics help kids visualize abstract concepts. The product is being marketed around the world and a home learning version will be available soon.

This is truly good news and I congratulate all the teachers and board officials who have worked on this innovative project for three years.

ORANGEVILLE KINSMEN

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the Legislature today to honour the dedication and work of the Orangeville Kinsmen service club within my riding of Dufferin-Peel.

The Kinsmen Club of Orangeville is celebrating 35 years of service to the town of Orangeville and surrounding area. The Kin clubs of Orangeville have organized and participated in many events that have raised awareness for numerous causes and held fund-raisers and special activities that help make our community special.

Recently, the Orangeville Kin clubs orchestrated a radiothon promoting cystic fibrosis research. Nationally, Kin clubs across Canada have been fund-raising for cystic fibrosis since 1964. To date, they have raised over $20 million towards CF research.

They also run a variety of fund-raising activities throughout the year. The money goes towards many worthwhile causes, including playground equipment for parks within our community, Family Transition Place, Big Brothers, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the March of Dimes, Boy Scouts, the Dufferin Area Hospital and many other worthwhile causes.

This year, they have agreed to take on organizing the Orangeville Santa Claus parade, which has grown to become a huge success and a big project.

I would like to offer the Orangeville Kinsmen Club all the best during their 35th anniversary and wish them well in their next 35 years.

ST THOMAS OF VILLANOVA SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): In September 1993, St Thomas of Villanova high school will open its doors to about 800 students very enthusiastic about entering into their own domain.

I'll explain. For the past five years, these students have been patiently awaiting the opportunity to have somewhere they could call their very own. For the past five years, they have been sharing lockers, gymnasiums, classrooms, fields and everything else that a student should have available to him or her.

St Thomas of Villanova will attract students from seven municipalities and hopefully achieve around 1,300 in the next few years. The school is situated at the northwest corner of County Road 8 and Disputed Road in the town of LaSalle.

The school will have baseball diamonds, soccer fields, a running track and a triple gymnasium which can be combined into one large facility for community use as well. The classrooms will be well lit, the façade dominated by a tree of life and a huge stained glass window donated by the Basilian religious order.

Appreciation should be given to the teachers and student bodies in the past years at General Amherst, in Amherstburg, for their kindness and generosity. A sharing of school facilities was the order of the day; two student systems rolled into one was not easy to attain, yet they accomplished that.

I was able to visit the school on two different occasions and saw, at first hand, sharing in action. Principals of both schools certainly had their hands full in making sure the two student bodies worked well together.

I congratulate the teachers, students and parents at St Thomas of Villanova, as you have worked hard to attain your own facilities. Much success in the coming years, and we will see you at the ribbon-cutting ceremonies.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Mary Javadimatis is a grade 5 student at Forest Manor Public School in my riding of Oriole.

Recently, Mary's grade 5 class was visited by Officer Phil of the Metropolitan Toronto Police department to discuss bicycle safety. Mary's class was informed about the importance of operating bicycles safely.

Officer Phil took the time to tell Mary and her classmates that they need not only ride safely, watching out for cars, pedestrians and other bikers, but they also have to have a bicycle that is safe itself. They were told the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet and ensuring that their bicycles are equipped with reflectors and mirrors.

Mary says that when she purchased her bicycle, these safety features were not included in the purchase price. Mary believes that the law in Ontario should require retailers to include standard safety features and devices when they sell their bikes. Mary points out, however, that the cost of buying reflectors, helmets and mirrors separately can add up to a big expense. She realizes the cost of purchasing reflectors, helmets and mirrors can really add a lot to the cost of a bicycle.

Perhaps bicycle manufacturers could try harder to make bicycles that are both safe and affordable. With bicycles becoming ever more popular, I believe that Mary's suggestion that safety features be mandatory on children's bicycles certainly warrants serious consideration by the Minister of Transportation.

CONTINUING EDUCATION AWARDS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): On Tuesday, June 15, 1993, I had the privilege of speaking at the continuing education awards banquet at Ryerson Polytechnic University.

Each year outstanding students are honoured for their academic achievement and contributions outside of work or school. On Tuesday, more than 20 students were honoured for their dedication and perseverance. Many of the award winners were parents raising young families. Their commitment to education has enabled them to maintain a high academic standing, and they have made time in their busy lives to contribute to the community. We were all very proud of their achievements.

Four teachers were also granted awards. They were nominated by their students for being enthusiastic, stimulating and having the ability to motivate students.

On behalf of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I would like to congratulate the award winners for their courage and determination. We are certain they will be leaders in their communities.

I would also like to congratulate Brent Bowes, president of the Continuing Education Students' Association of Ryerson, for a most successful year, and thank Diana McLaren for inviting me to be part of the celebration. I was honoured to be the first guest speaker at an official function at Ryerson Polytechnic University and congratulate President Terrence Grier for his leadership.

I was also given this T-shirt as a gift. I'm not going to wear it in the House.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Better declare it. It's worth more than $200.

Mrs Cunningham: I won't wear this in the House, as I can see the Premier staring at me right now. He also wants me to declare it. He says it's over $200, but I'm sure they will, next year, have "Polytechnic University" on their T-shirts.

GRIMSBY HAPPENING-IN-THE-PARK

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to tell the House about a very exciting and entertaining festival that will take place in my riding this Sunday, June 27: Grimsby's annual Happening-in-the-Park.

Sunny skies or grey, Grimsby will always come alive as approximately 5,000 people converge on Centennial Park to celebrate Canada's 126th birthday a few days early.

From 1 pm, the park will be packed with musicians, dancers, food booths, bands, a barbershop quartet and a world-famous jump rope team called the Lincoln Leapers. Also, there will be horseshoe and Nintendo competitions -- which my son won two years ago -- a rugby game, balloon sculpting and a display at the Grimsby Art Gallery. At 9:45 pm, a 10-minute fireworks show will end the celebration.

I'm sure this year's Happening-in-the-Park will bring together the entire community of Grimsby, and it will attract visitors from other parts of the Niagara Peninsula, Metro Toronto and the United States. I would like to congratulate the organizers of Grimsby's 21st annual Happening-in-the-Park for coming up with a unique way of promoting their community.

I urge members of this House and their constituents to come on down to my riding this Sunday and experience another wonderful Happening-in-the-Park, and if you're coming, please bring some sunshine.

BIRTHDAYS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'd like to rise on a point of personal privilege. I probably haven't got a point of privilege, but nevertheless I'm going to ask the House to join with me in early birthday wishes to a friend and colleague, the Minister of Labour, Bob Mackenzie, who on Saturday will be 65. He's bashful and he didn't want me to say anything about it, but it's a milestone that deserves some recognition, and I ask our friends to applaud.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Not only does the member for Durham East not have a point of privilege, but should any other member rise to indicate that the member for Ottawa East is also celebrating his birthday today, that would not be a point of privilege either.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: There is a gentleman in Ottawa called Jean Charest who is also having a birthday today.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have an unusual request of the Speaker, and I seek unanimous consent of the House. It seems that this is the last day for our pages. They're quite a creative group. They've asked if they could break with traditions of the House and sing a song they've written, which will take about two minutes. If there is unanimous consent, now might be an appropriate time for them to do that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Are we agreed? Agreed. Get your group together.

The pages sang.

The Speaker: Super. Thank you. I must thank the member for Oriole. Indeed, I was going to say that as this is the last day for our current group of pages, I would like to express on behalf of all the members how deeply we appreciate the service that you have provided with such distinction to our chamber and to our members. Thank you very, very much for everything you've done.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

La Saint-Jean, c'est depuis près de 150 ans une occasion pour la francophonie canadienne de se fêter. Ce qui était au début une occasion de célébrer le jour le plus long de l'année est devenu, au fil des ans, un moyen pour les francophones de l'Ontario et du reste du Canada de célébrer leur joie de vivre.

Aujourd'hui, des célébrations auront lieu partout à travers la province pour célébrer la Saint-Jean, entre autres, à Ottawa, au Franco, un événement qui attire à chaque année plus d'un demi-million de personnes et qui se termine ce soir par un festival haut en couleur.

À Toronto, à la Place Ontario, vous pourrez assister ce soir à un spectacle mettant en vedette Robert Charlebois et Mette Gabo. D'autres activités auront lieu, bien sûr, à Sudbury et aussi dans la ville de Welland.

Saint-Jean-Baptiste is a special occasion for francophones to celebrate their culture, and I invite all Ontarians to celebrate with the francophone community. Keep in mind that you don't have to be a francophone to "partager," to join in our joie de vivre. Bonne Saint-Jean-Baptiste à tous.

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Comme vient de le mentionner le ministre responsable des Affaires francophones, aujourd'hui en Ontario, comme partout au Canada, les francophones fêtent des siècles de détermination tranquille à survivre et à prospérer. Je veux leur souhaiter la plus heureuse des Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

À Hearst, comme à Windsor, à Prescott et Russell, à Ottawa, à Toronto et à bien d'autres endroits dans la province, ils se rassemblent et se disent qu'ils sont fiers de ce qu'ils sont. Ils se disent qu'ils se souviennent.

Beaucoup de mes collègues se sont déjà joints aux festivités entourant la Saint-Jean-Baptiste. Samedi, Lyn McLeod et le groupe parlementaire d'Ottawa-Carleton vont faire une visite sur le site du Festival Franco-Ontarien à Ottawa. Nous avons tous hâte de prendre un bain de francophonie dans une atmosphère de gaieté sur un très beau site.

Demain, je vais avoir le très grand plaisir de participer à l'inauguration officielle d'une peinture murale réalisée par un artiste francophone, Pierre Hardy. Cette peinture murale s'intitule «Hommage aux Franco-Ontariens», et elle retrace les grands moments de l'histoire franco-ontarienne. Ses dimensions imposantes sont à l'image de la contribution de la communauté franco-ontarienne à la vie de cette province. Je réfléchissais à propos de l'oeuvre de Pierre Hardy et je me suis dit qu'une telle peinture murale était importante à cette étape ici de notre histoire. Je félicite ceux qui en ont eu l'idée.

Encore aujourd'hui, le travail acharné des personnes de notre histoire doit nous servir d'exemple. Prenons l'exemple de la ténacité de Jeanne Lajoie, du sens de l'innovation du père Thériault, d'Alphonse Desjardins, du sens des affaires de Lise Desjardins, de Jean-Guy Desjardins et de Delcourt Soucy. Inspirons-nous aussi du révérend père Charlebois, qui a fondé le journal Le Droit. Ces gens-là et bien d'autres, avec l'aide d'une population courageuse et toujours prête à aider, nous ont donné des instruments d'épanouissement et nous indiquent la marche à suivre.

J'aimerais qu'un jour, on retrouve des peintures murales comme celle dont je vous parle partout dans la province. J'aimerais qu'un jour, elles relatent l'histoire d'un peuple qui, à force de sa ténacité, s'est donné des instruments qui lui ont permis de devenir une force économique, une influence culturelle importante, un p