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

December 2, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L073 - Tue 2 Dec 1986 / Mar 2 déc 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NURSING HOMES

ELECTRIC SHOCK THERAPY

SIMCOE CHRISTMAS PANORAMA

SUNDAY TRADING

WAFERBOARD PLANT

RECOGNITION OF FORMER MEMBER

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

PORTABLE CLASSROOMS

LAW ENFORCEMENT

PLANT SHUTDOWN

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

IDEA CORP.

DAY CARE

LEAD LEVELS

IDEA CORP.

INSURANCE AVAILABILITY

LAKE POLLUTION

IDEA CORP.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

RACE RELATIONS

LAW ENFORCEMENT

FLOODING

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

SUNDAY TRADING

PENSION FUNDS

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Dean: I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to the critically short supply of nursing home beds that has been caused by his refusal to issue additional licences.

It has been two full years since the last allocation, and many families are encountering severe difficulties in finding beds. I know the trendy thing to do is to talk about home care replacing nursing home beds, and I fully support keeping people in their own homes. However, it will take time to create the province-wide, comprehensive home care system that will be needed to relieve the demand for nursing home beds. Until it is in place, the demand for beds is increasing.

Currently in Hamilton-Wentworth, 298 people who desperately need nursing home beds are on a waiting list. The physical space exists to fill most of this demand. All that is needed is ministry approval.

Last week I had to deal with the nearly panicky family of a constituent who had been told by the medium-care facility where he was staying that it could no longer provide adequate care for him and that he had until the end of the month to find a nursing-home-care bed. Fortunately, we were able to persuade the Ministry of Health to allow Hamilton-Wentworth to over-bed temporarily by six beds, and thus the critical needs were met. This is, however, a Band-Aid solution.

I urge the minister to take immediate action to allocate sufficient new beds to cover the existing need.

ELECTRIC SHOCK THERAPY

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise again in the House to decry the use of electric cattle prods by institutions in this province on the mentally handicapped who are behaviour problems in the institutions.

I was pleased that CBC-TV concentrated on this issue. I encourage all members to look at the videotape of that presentation so they can see what it is like when it is administered and to call on this government, as I have been doing, not to try to develop standards for the use of this barbaric form of treatment but rather to outlaw it in Ontario.

Other jurisdictions do not need it. It is preposterous to think that a few people in this province, about eight to 13, are the only ones who would benefit from this kind of torture. It is time we ended it as any kind of supposed therapeutic treatment in this province.

If the government is unwilling to take that action, then I suggest it puts the lie to the posture of the Liberals that they are reformists or progressive in any fashion.

SIMCOE CHRISTMAS PANORAMA

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to use this occasion to draw attention to the 29th annual Simcoe Christmas Panorama. For those members who have not yet had the pleasure of being in Simcoe during the Christmas season, let me shed some light on what they are missing.

The Simcoe Christmas Panorama has been a yuletide tradition since a dedicated group of Simcoe businessmen decided to light up Wellington Park in 1958. The panorama consists of 60 different exhibits illuminated by almost 30,000 Christmas lights and set in the natural beauty of Wellington Park.

In 1985, the panorama attracted 220 tour buses from all over Ontario and the northern part of the United States. The Simcoe Chamber of Commerce has estimated that 500,000 people visited last year's panorama. The panorama is a labour of love for the 400 volunteers who unselfishly give of their time each December to make Simcoe's Christmas light show the best in Canada.

The official opening ceremony for this year's Simcoe Christmas Panorama was held last night in Wellington Park with the Simcoe citizen of the year, district court judge John Pringle, pulling the first switch.

The lights will be on every evening from 5:30 until midnight from now until January 1. I invite members and people from around Ontario to take the opportunity to visit Simcoe during the Christmas season.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. O'Connor: I will be pleased to present in the House later today the largest petition ever delivered to the Legislature of Ontario, comprising some 108,892 names, all in opposition to Sunday shopping.

I compliment the People for Sunday Association of Canada and, particularly, its executive director, Les Kingdon, who is here in the House today, for the co-operation and effort they have extended in organizing so mammoth an expression of the wishes of the people of Ontario.

With the widespread and flagrant violation of the Retail Business Holidays Act by all sectors of the retail industry, it is now incumbent on the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to enforce the laws of this province. If citizens and corporations, large or small, are allowed to thumb their noses at the law with impunity for the sake of profit, our society, which is based on the rule of law, will be seriously eroded. The government simply cannot sit back and allow this to happen.

What positive steps does the Attorney General intend to take to enforce the Retail Business Holidays Act? Alternatively, does he simply not care whether the law of Ontario is respected?

WAFERBOARD PLANT

Mr. Laughren: The members of the House will know that on Monday of this week the Smooth Rock Falls operations of Abitibi-Price changed hands in a sale to the Waferboard Corp. of Timmins. Since that sale was announced in August, 144 jobs have been lost in a community with a population of only 2,000.

The Canadian Paperworkers Union and other community leaders had petitioned the government to intervene with Abitibi-Price to open its pension plan to encourage early retirements. Abitibi-Price recently diverted $10 million from the negotiated plan, money which the union argues -- and I agree -- should have been used to encourage early retirement so that other workers could have had those jobs.

We asked the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) in this assembly not to allow that sale until job guarantees had been given, because there is a real suspicion that Waferboard wants the cutting limits rather than the mill. The minister and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) simply walked away from two very reasonable requests: one to have the pension plan opened and the other to provide job guarantees and to tie those cutting limits to the job guarantees.

Those guarantees were never given and were never delivered, and those were very reasonable requests. This government has to stop thinking that the problems in northern Ontario are simply public relations problems.

RECOGNITION OF FORMER MEMBER

Ms. E. J. Smith: I am sure the members of the Legislature will be very interested to know that last night John Ferris, the former member for London South, was named chairman of the board of the London and Middlesex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. This becomes quite a historic occasion because he was previously the Catholic representative on the public school board and in that capacity had risen to be chairman of that board. I think he may well be the only person who has ever risen to be chairman of both school boards in his own community and, with the new laws, probably nobody else will manage to accomplish that feat.

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Cousens: I stand today to recognize the achievements of FoodShare, which is celebrating its first anniversary. It serves the people of Toronto, especially, where there has been a need for food. People just did not have it because they did not have a home or a job, and even those with jobs that paid too little have had to depend on the sharing of others who had something to give them.

Today marks the first 12 months in which this organization has been serving the people of our province and filling a hole caused by the failure of governments at all levels to understand with compassion the needs of those people who otherwise would not be helped.

We all remember the work of FoodShare in September when the potato harvest was gathered and shared with those who did not have any food. We see it continuing today as we head into the Christmas season and heavy winter weather when still others are coming together to help people.

We recognize the significant contribution of the organizers of those 150 agencies. On behalf of all of us who have so much, we say to those who are helping others who have so little, thank you very much for that dedication and concern for those people in our society.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: It was revealed at the inquest of Robin Comba, just this past week, that he probably died from inhaling dust, which burned his lungs and his air passages before he was buried by 30 tons of dust while working. There is no end to murder in the work place in Ontario.

It is a known fact that this material, when inhaled and mixed with any type of moisture, causes a burning sensation. The workers were not provided with the appropriate dust masks. In this province, there is insufficient testing of dust masks and fine particles. Will the minister get on with funding some organization to do the appropriate testing?

13:45

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce a bill that will result in a number of timely and wide-ranging amendments to Ontario's Game and Fish Act.

Game and fish are important resources to the lifestyles of many Ontarians and are of great benefit to the province's economy. This is especially true in northern Ontario where tourism is a major industry. It is, therefore, vital to have forward-looking legislation to assist in the management of Ontario's wildlife and fisheries resources and in the regulation of the users of those resources.

The Game and Fish Act has not been amended since 1980. We require various changes to implement programs that have been developed since then. Such programs as the new aquaculture and black bear management programs will enable the private sector to provide better and enhanced services to its clients.

As well, the amendments will enable Ontario to protect its wildlife and fisheries interests and, at the same time, assist other jurisdictions in meeting their objectives. National and international trade in wildlife and fisheries products are now a fact of life that must be faced. These and other amendments will lead to more effective administration of the act and address enforcement problems that have become more acute in recent years.

Altogether, the proposed amendments deal with changes to 49 sections in the Game and Fish Act. I will not discuss every one, but I would like to take a moment to highlight several key ones.

One group of amendments concerns how black bear will be managed in Ontario. In recent years, this animal has become a prized big-game species. Changes are required to permit better control of the harvest, to prevent the destruction of dens and to control hunting methods. These changes will have a very positive effect on our northern tourist industry.

Another amendment deals with the expansion of the commercial aquaculture industry. The ministry wishes to encourage its future growth, and this requires changes to permit the culture of additional fish species.

Still other amendments address the issue of keeping game in captivity. The present act permits any game species to be kept in captivity without regulation for 10 days. As a result, it is virtually impossible to prove that a particular specimen has been held continuously for that length of time. Further, the terms "captivity" and "game bird" are ambiguous.

Such inadequacies have made it extremely difficult to effectively prevent the keeping of such species as falcons, black bear and deer, whether imported or taken from the wild in Ontario. It is, therefore, necessary to clarify the government's intent concerning the entire issue of the keeping of game in captivity.

Another issue concerns the relatively recent and highly successful reintroduction of wild turkeys to Ontario. This means such aspects as hunter licensing and control of hunting methods must be dealt with in the amendments.

Ontario has an excellent record on hunter safety. To improve on this even further, I am recommending that legislative authority be established to require hunters to wear hunter orange garments. Also, I am proposing that it be considered an offence to be hunting with a firearm while impaired.

Finally, persons who violate any part of the act for commercial gain will face much stiffer penalties than in the past. The existing maximum penalty of $5,000 will be increased to $50,000 or imprisonment for a maximum of two years less a day, or both.

These are some of the highlights of the proposed changes to the Game and Fish Act. All the amendments are the product of a long and thorough process of consultation and preparation.

I strongly believe the bill to amend the act reflects the concerns of the people and various interest groups of this province as much as those of my ministry. That is why I am looking forward to the bill's speedy passage through the House.

Mr. Pope: I feel I must respond to the Minister of Natural Resources and his sense of priorities.

Mr. Ashe: And his sense of humour.

Mr. Pope: And his sense of humour.

We have a situation now in northern Ontario where our resource industries are in trouble because of international competition and the countervail-duty case in the United States, for which the minister must bear some responsibility. Hundreds of workers are out of work in northern Ontario. We have long-term problems in our resource communities. We have real concerns in the tourist sector to which the minister referred in his statement, about its future and how it can be competitive with even the tourist advantages in southern Ontario.

Facing all of these problems in northern Ontario in the resource sector, for which he has some responsibility, the minister's announcement of an initiative is amendments to the Game and Fish Act. As a representative of the Liberal government of Ontario, the minister has failed the north. He has instituted no new initiatives to help the people of northern Ontario. He has no idea about how to help the communities and industries of northern Ontario. The only initiative he has announced in this entire session is the introduction of amendments to the Game and Fish Act.

I want to talk a bit about the minister's concept of public participation and involvement. The minister made a great deal out of having public meetings at the Ministry of Natural Resources offices with respect to the fishing licence. The fact of the matter is that the minister has ignored the petitions pouring in to him and to all members of this Legislature against the $10 licence.

There is much more at stake in northern Ontario than the minister's amendments to the Game and Fish Act. He has yet to indicate to northern Ontario what stocking programs are going to be put in place to help the northern Ontario tourist industry. He said every single dollar that came from fishing licences would go into stocking programs in northern Ontario. We have yet to have that list. He has had eight months to hand over that list to the interested tourist groups and chambers of commerce in northern Ontario. He still refuses to do so and has now couched those in terms in other terminology, such as he is going to pay for the administration costs of his system out of the revenues.

The tourist industry and the sports clubs in northern Ontario have been abandoned by this minister. He has cut back on the community fisheries involvement program in northern Ontario, not only in the number of projects but in the money. That is a fact. He has cut back on the commitment of stocking to northern Ontario. That is a fact. He has abandoned northern Ontario. He goes to Niagara Falls to buy his silly fishing licence and leaves northern Ontario on its own. He should be ashamed and all members of the government should stand condemned. The only wild turkeys that have to be taken care of are right there in the government of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: I too think the Minister of Natural Resources should be condemned for carrying on the policies of the previous government. It is outrageous.

The changes referred to in the minister's statement seem to be positive ones. Of course, we will have to wait until we see the bill itself to determine which ones we can support and which ones we simply cannot support. I was pleased with the amendment of the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) on the wearing of fluorescent orange in the bush while hunting. A lot of credit must go to my colleague the member for Algoma for raising that with the minister.

When talking about the introduction of wild turkeys to Ontario, we have here absolute proof that the freeze on Liberal nominations has now been lifted. The one thing he has left out of his statement, though, is that in order to protect Tories, he has to make amendments now to the Endangered Species Act in the province.

I am looking forward to seeing the actual bill, because I agree with the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) that the minister has not dealt with a lot of the problems in northern Ontario. In particular, he has not dealt with the fish-stocking problem, which he promised he would do when he introduced the fishing licence fee for resident anglers in the province. We look forward to seeing more action in that regard. I would like to leave the balance of the time to my colleague the member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: I want to express my happiness at the minister's statement with regard to the mandatory use of fluorescent orange. It is a good colour. We like it in this party. It should protect hunters from that minority of hunters who are not careful in ensuring they know what they are firing at when they are in the bush.

I want to make a couple of comments about the other aspects of the minister's statement. With regard to the changes in the bear hunt, I hope the minister is suggesting there will be a prohibition on the use of hunting dogs in the bear hunt, not only in the early spring but throughout the bear hunt as well. We have had some serious problems, particularly in populated areas in northern Ontario, because of the unfortunate use of dogs by some irresponsible owners during that hunt.

I am disappointed that the minister has not been more specific in his statement with regard to stocking, as my colleagues have mentioned. I am particularly concerned that all the moneys coming from the introduction of the licence be used for the enhancement of sport fishing in northern Ontario, not just in the big lakes but also in the inland lakes. I will be interested in the minister's position and the position of his ministry with regard to the stocking of salmon as well as lake trout and pickerel in northern Ontario.

I hope that in carrying out his changes the minister will be taking into account the discussions that are ongoing with regard to Indian treaty rights and their right to fish and hunt for their own use on the lands that were surrendered.

Finally, I commend the minister for his attempts to deal with the concerns and needs of the commercial fisherman and the commercial fishery and on the need to respond to those concerns and needs while balancing them with those of the tourist industry and the sport fishery.

I look forward to the specifics of the changes and hope the minister will share them with us well in advance, so that we can determine the result in northern Ontario and so that we will have a reasoned and responsible debate on this rather important initiative.

13:58

ORAL QUESTIONS

PORTABLE CLASSROOMS

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Minister of Education. Can he tell us how many young people across Ontario are getting their education in portable classrooms?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I cannot give a precise response to the Leader of the Opposition on that account. Thanks to the generosity of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), I can tell him, however, the new government has announced a capital program for 1987 that will see the expenditure of $147 million on the capital account, which will be precisely double what the previous government was prepared to expend in 1985.

Yes, it is true we have a number of students in portables, but it is also true that this government is addressing in a serious and meaningful way that decade of educational underfunding on the capital account that characterized the years 1975 to 1985. Thanks to the generosity of this Treasurer, we are making very important and positive steps to address those capital needs.

Mr. Grossman: Almost two years ago to the day, the minister introduced a no-confidence motion condemning the then government, and I will quote directly, because of the "policy of the government to refuse to provide capital funds to school boards for the building of school facilities where overcrowding and the use of portables are at a crisis stage." I find it appalling that the minister, having moved that no-confidence motion, would not know how many young people are having to get their education in portable classrooms a year and a half after he became minister.

I want to draw to his attention a publication that came out today, put out by the Ontario Public School Trustees' Association, which describes in red outline the capital-funding crisis faced by the public schools of Ontario.

They indicate that this year 50,000 -- I offer that information to the minister, who does not have it -- young people will be educated in portables this year and next year it will rise to 60,000.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: The minister has spoken earlier of the generosity of the Treasurer in trying to solve this problem. Can he inform the House how generous the Treasurer was in 1986 in increasing the capital grants to alleviate this problem?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The Leader of the Opposition provides me with a much-sought-after opportunity to indicate once again the challenge the new government faced when it took office in June 1985. Very serious pressures had been allowed to build up over the preceding years, which we have moved with expedition and effect to address. There were, of course, other issues on the educational agenda that had to be addressed that were left by the previous administration, because the previous administration had neither the guts nor the capacity to meet the challenge in those critical areas.

In his October 1985 budget, the Treasurer announced that an additional $25 million would be added to the earlier capital allocation. We have seen a substantial enrichment in that budget and in the allocations earlier this year. I repeat that for 1987 this government will spend $147 million on the capital account. That will be double what the honourable member was prepared to spend in 1985. I think that is a very positive step forward.

Mr. Grossman: We have ascertained two things so far today. One, the Minister of Education does not know how many students are currently being educated in portables and, two, he either did not know or was not prepared to tell us how much was the 1986 increase given by his so-generous Treasurer.

In my final supplementary, I want to draw something to the minister's attention. In the Peel board, 13 per cent of all students are being educated in portables; in Durham, 13 per cent; in Dufferin-Peel, 27 per cent of all young people are going to school in portables; in York region, 33 per cent, and in Carleton, 34 per cent.

Against that background, in 1986 the Treasurer gave the minister exactly a $12-million increase on the capital side to solve this problem. To put that $12-million increase into perspective, that $12 million is $5.5 million less than his leader gave his good friend to put in a computer museum at the Toronto harbourfront. That $12 million represents hardly a dent in the problem outlined in this document. Indeed, if the $17.5 million that went to the Exploracom project had been given to the Lanark, Leeds, Cochrane, Iroquois Falls, Kirkland Lake, Muskoka and Nipissing boards, all their capital repair problems would have been resolved.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: How can the minister justify that $17.5 million going to Exploracom?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The Leader of the Opposition has arithmetic that is almost as bad as that of his Education critic, who said in the House the other day that 57 from 100 leaves 57. The official opposition will want to enrol in some of our schools to take a mathematical upgrading program.

As I recall it, in 1986 the capital allocation in the province was something in the neighbourhood, all dollars in, of about $107 million. For 1987, it will be $147 million.

Mr. Grossman: What about 1985?

Hon. Mr. Conway: In 1985, the previous government had allocated $67 million.

Mr. Callahan: Shame.

Mr. Grossman: Wrong.

Hon. Mr. Conway: That is the reality. The previous year, in 1984, it was about $65 million or $67 million.

We have substantially improved and enriched the capital account. Yes, it is true that we are not overnight going to be able on this side to undo the damage done by that side in the decade 1974-84.

Mr. Grossman: The minister did not know what the budget was when he got there, did not know what he had in 1985, did not know what he had in 1986 and does not know how many students are going to school in portables. That tells the whole story.

Mr. Speaker: Is that a question to the Minister of Education?

[Later]

Mr. Grossman: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to correct the record. I may have left an impression that was not entirely correct. I suggested 50,000 young people were being educated in portables across the province. In fact, there are 50,000 young people in portables in only six of the 173 school boards. The grand total would be more like 150,000.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mr. Grossman: My second question is to the Attorney General. I remind the Attorney General that we have questioned him several times about his government's failure to press charges to get the Morgentaler clinic closed. Every time we have asked him he has told us, quite eloquently -- and we have the quotes here -- that he could not tolerate a government that instructed the police to lay charges.

This morning we read in the newspapers that the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) has ordered police forces across Ontario to begin to lay charges this Sunday in an aggressive way against those violating the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Which is it? Does the Attorney General have the power and does he instruct the police forces when to lay charges, or does he not, as in the case when he wants to hide from the Morgentaler situation?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I know the honourable member will not want to take advantage of a difficult and contentious issue about which he is apparently not prepared to express his own opinion; so I will make no reference to it.

As the member well knows, the power of the Attorney General does not include instructing the police about charges they should or should not lay. The power of the Attorney General is to invite an investigation, if one is appropriate in his opinion, and to exercise his powers under the Criminal Code if he sees fit to do so. The Solicitor General, as the minister responsible for the police, may have other capacities.

Mr. Grossman: May I ask the Attorney General, who is the chief law officer of the crown, whether during all these months when he has been answering these questions, he has been drawing a fine distinction between the Attorney General's power to authorize or invite police to lay charges and the powers of the Solicitor General? If that is the case, he might well have been factually accurate on the record, but he will have left an impression in this House quite the reverse of perhaps what is, shall we say, accurate.

My second question, to allow the Attorney General to clarify the record, is this: is he telling the House that the Attorney General has no power to and should not instruct police as to when to lay charges, but that the Solicitor General does?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am trying to follow precisely the fine line that the Leader of the Opposition has suggested. As his colleague, who knows more about the matter from an Attorney General's perspective would confirm for him, the chief crown law officer is neither a policeman nor responsible for the police. It is true that when the police conduct an investigation they are entitled to approach a crown attorney for legal advice about the efficacy of the evidence they have collected. However, it is a policeman's responsibility, just as it is any informant's responsibility, to satisfy himself, with or without legal advice, that he has reasonable and probable grounds to lay a charge.

If there are people such as the Leader of the Opposition who think the Attorney General of the province is something in the nature of a policeman, they are quite wrong. The Attorney General of the province is the chief law officer of the crown.

Mr. Grossman: The Attorney General has treated us to yet another one of his lectures, but he has not answered the question. With respect, let me read him the quotes that are causing the confusion I am inviting him to clear up.

On June 24, in response to a question on abortions, his leader said, "If he is suggesting to me that the Premier should instruct the Attorney General to instruct the police to lay charges, that is not the kind of government I want in this province."

Yesterday, he assured us in the House, as he did a moment ago, that the Attorney General does not tell the police when to lay charges. Another time yesterday he said, "We have been laying charges where infractions occur." That is what he said yesterday in the House. This morning, the Solicitor General said he had instructed that charges be laid on Sunday. Is it within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General, but not that of the Attorney General, to tell police forces when to lay charges?

14:10

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is my responsibility, as I understand it, to make clear what my jurisdiction is; and my jurisdiction, apart from giving legal advice --

Mr. Grossman: Come on. You have been lecturing everyone on what he ought to do.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member says "lecturing." I am very sensitive to that remark. It would have eased the matter if in caucus this morning he had taken the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) aside and asked for some advice on the position of the Attorney General in government. The difficulties that confront him would have been cleared away. The point I want to make is that the Attorney General's responsibility is quite clear; it is to prosecute charges that have been laid by the police or, in appropriate cases, by private informants.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Rae: In view of the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. He should know that the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) and I met with the workers at Goodyear on Friday. We also were at the plant gate this morning at six o'clock to talk to the workers as the shift changed, as workers came in and out of the plant.

The minister may be aware that just before the workers got word that the plant was to close, they all received a letter from Mr. Mercer thanking them for their spirited defence of the Goodyear company. He said, "All can take great pride in demonstrating that we and other Americans value the industries built up over many years with hard work and dedication and won't stand idly by when they are threatened."

The workers on the line this morning were angry. They ranged in age from the 20s to the 60s. Some of them have just bought homes on the basis of having jobs at that plant. Why is there no legislation in this province that will allow Ontarians to stand up and fight for the workers who are devastated by corporate irresponsibility of this kind?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I am aware of the letter that was sent out. It seems kind of funny that within a couple of days they all received their walkout notices. Both I and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) are looking at this. We are very concerned about it. I can also say that the Minister of Labour is looking at legislation in this regard.

Mr. Rae: The Minister of Labour has been looking at legislation since the cows came home, and he has produced absolutely zilch in defence of the working people of this province in the face of this kind of corporate ripoff.

The letter also said, "Goodyear's board of directors has unanimously approved transactions which will enhance both near-term and long-term shareholder value." Can the minister tell us what piece of legislation, what law, what leverage the workers of Goodyear can refer to that will protect not shareholder value but worker value, in the most important investment they have, their jobs? What is he going to do to make sure they get that protection, which is not there right now?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The leader of the third party is likely aware that we have also written to Mr. Mercer asking that certain things, certain considerations be given to the workers. The Minister of Labour and this government are very concerned about the workers in this province, and we are working very hard on this issue.

Mr. Rae: The minister has not answered my question. I have asked it twice. I will ask it again. What legal power, what legal leverage, what law does he have on the books that will allow him to deal with Mr. Mercer when he does not answer the minister's letter?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I hope that Mr. Mercer will answer our letter and that we will be able to meet with him. As I mentioned before, the Minister of Labour is looking at legislation of this type.

Mr. Rae: I am glad the minister set up his colleague the Minister of Labour, because I have some questions for him as well.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question relating to his area of strength, industrial health and safety, where he has of course been an absolute tiger on behalf of working people. The tabbies seem to be rather quiet on that.

The minister must be aware that five workers have died at Port Arthur Shipyard since 1983. He must be aware that charges were laid after three men burned to death in February 1983 and that further charges were laid after two men were electrocuted in June 1983. It took until October 1986 for the Ontario Court of Appeal to confirm two earlier rulings that a ship was not an industrial establishment and that therefore the workers had no protection. One charge was dismissed, and the other charges with respect to the two men who were electrocuted were withdrawn by the ministry. Have the regulations changed since the court decision on October 2, 1986?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: My understanding is that the change required is a change in the act. We are well aware of the very tragic situation that occurred in the shipyard. Obviously, as the member points out, we are aware of the difficulties that had one prosecution fail and forced us to withdraw another. I can assure the honourable member that when changes come forward in the not-too-distant future, this matter will be addressed in those changes.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister confirm that a justice of the peace made a decision on May 4, 1984; that a provincial court judge made a decision on May 30, 1985, a year later, and that there was a decision of the Court of Appeal in October 1986? Can the minister confirm also that the workers at Port Arthur Shipyard are no more protected today than they were back in 1984? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The concern the member raises is one in terms of prosecution; that is certainly one aspect. This is a very troubling case. We want to ensure that when we move forward with amendments to the act we will be closing all the loopholes. That is what we intend to do in the next short while. The member points out quite correctly that the Court of Appeal decision was in the past short while. Until about two weeks ago, we were reviewing the impact of that Court of Appeal decision.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister tell us how he feels as the Minister of Labour knowing that five people have died in situations where his ministry felt sufficiently moved to get off its butt and prosecute? Workers are still at risk. How can he stand in his place today and defend himself when he, on his own admission, is leaving the working people of this province at risk because of his failure to change the law?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think the member will want to acknowledge that we are talking about prosecution. That is the problem. That does not speak to whether people are protected. With all due respect to the leader of the third party, it does not. I gave the member an assurance in the House that this matter would be dealt with in amendments to the act. I hope to bring these forward in the not-too-distant future. We will do that; there will be amendments to the act. I am sure that when the member sees those amendments, he will be pleased, as I think all members of the House and indeed the workers of the province will be.

14:20

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Philip: I have a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in relationship to his statement yesterday.

Will the minister confirm that on November 13, Mr. MacKinnon indicated to the standing committee on public accounts that the main and only assets of Wyda were the intellectual assets of the company? Can he tell us how he put those assets into receivership, and what guarantees does he have to protect the $3 million he has lost to the Ontario taxpayers?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: First, we do not believe we have lost $3 million. We feel the people are important assets. Three of the vice-presidents testified before the judge yesterday morning when we were looking for a receiver. Those three vice-presidents talked about the value of the assets of the company and the product, saying it was a good product and it is hoped those employees will stay with the company.

Mr. Philip: Will the minister confirm whether Mr. Dobzinski is in Canada at the moment or whether, as we understand, he is no longer in Canada? Will the minister confirm that the main assets of the company are the software he has with him out of the country, and indeed the creativity and ideas he has in his head? How does the minister put Mr. Dobzinski's brain into receivership? Why does he not agree to a judicial inquiry to find out exactly what has happened to the assets and the $3 million of the taxpayers' money?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I understand Mr. Dobzinski is not in the country. At present, it is not known whether he has the tapes with him, although it is being looked into. We have copies of the tapes, and we had the people come to work, not on Friday, but on Monday. They will be there, and it is hoped they also form a great asset of that company and will continue to be with the company.

Mr. Gillies: My question is on the same matter and to the same minister. For months, Mr. Dobzinski refused to allow an auditor to review the $3 million that was flowed by the government to Wyda. As the minister has indicated, Mr. Dobzinski is out of the country, and one of the minister's officials was quoted this morning as saying: "We doubt if we will ever see him again. Mr. Dobzinski has taken with him copies of Wyda's newly developed software."

Has the minister determined the truth or otherwise of his official's statement? Can the minister outline to the House whether he has been successful in contacting Mr. Dobzinski and persuading him to come back here to face the music?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I mentioned, Mr. Dobzinski is not in the country; we are trying to locate him. As was mentioned yesterday, we have placed the company in the hands of a receiver and we hope to make the company viable.

Mr. Gillies: The minister has not answered the question. An official of his ministry told a media outlet in this city that he does not expect to see Mr. Dobzinski again. I believe this House has a right to know on what information that assumption was based. There are millions of dollars missing, and as the minister knows, hundreds of thousands of dollars were signed over personally to Mr. Dobzinski.

Will the minister indicate what steps have been taken? Has the Ontario Provincial Police been called in to find this man and this money? Will the minister concede that a judicial inquiry is necessary to recover as much of the public's investment as possible?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I mentioned yesterday and touched on today, the tapes were one of the first things we took possession of when we went down to the company on Friday. Those are in safe keeping, although we do not know whether copies were made of them. We will have the receiver continue to look at that, and we are looking at legal action.

DAY CARE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services arising out of answers about child care that he has given over the past couple of days.

Can the minister confirm that what he is saying and what he said yesterday in his response to questions from my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) with respect to nonprofit centres is that the Ontario government has basically decided to do nothing until the federal government changes the rules of the game so they can fund for-profit centres as well? Is that what he is telling us?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: No, I did not say that. What I said was that our negotiations and discussions with the federal government were along the lines that roughly 50 per cent or approximately 50,000 licensed spaces in the province were in the commercial market, and that if we were to move immediately to income testing and direct grants, which under current federal agreements are prohibited from being applied to the commercial centres, that would create a real problem for us in the short term.

If we could get some agreement from the federal government on how to deal with the commercial sector, whether in the short or long term, it would be preferable before we make a final decision. If we cannot get such an agreement, then we will move on our own.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister tell us why he will not move now with respect to the centres for which he can move? Tens of thousands of kids are in those places and thousands of parents are facing increasing financial difficulty as a result of the government's inaction. Can the minister tell us why those families that are using nonprofit centres should be held to ransom by his determination to fund for-profit centres as well? Why should we punish those kids and parents just because of the minister's predilection for funding commercial centres?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I cannot agree with the leader of the third party that we are holding families to ransom. I remind him that we have increased the total number of subsidized spaces in this province by 10,000 in little more than a year; that is a 50 per cent increase.

There are approximately 50,000 children and their families in the commercial sector who also have to be considered. Whether he agrees philosophically or ideologically that such should exist, in fact they do exist. In some communities they are the only available source of child care. We simply cannot turn our backs on them.

We want to negotiate with the federal government. As a matter of fact, a meeting is scheduled for January 26 between the ministers of social services across this country and the federal minister to deal with this issue. We hope to resolve it at that time. If there is a clear signal from the federal government that it is not prepared to resolve it, then we will take action on our own with respect to the nonprofit and municipal centres. We have said that very clearly.

LEAD LEVELS

Mr. Offer: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. A report was released yesterday indicating that lead contaminant readings in excess of 500 parts per million have been found in certain areas of the city of Mississauga. With respect to that report, it appears that level and in excess of that level can cause serious harm with respect to human health in different ways. What is the minister doing to protect the people in that area?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: My understanding is that there are not many secondary lead smelters in the province. The honourable member will recall -- certainly other members of the House will -- the problems identified in south Riverdale. The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) also raised issues related to his constituency in Toronto.

14:30

Mr. McClellan: About which you have done nothing.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We are moving quickly on that --

Mr. Mantel: Compared to a tortoise, you are a snail.

Mr. Speaker: Interjections are out of order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will not respond to that. I have to remember that the question came from the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer).

In this case, we will be placing a control order on the company to ensure that there is a significant and substantial reduction in the emissions coming from the Tonolli plant. The Exide plant is in the process of having a decommissioning plan put into effect. In the one case, where the plant will be continuing, a control order will have a substantial effect on the emissions; in the other case, a decommissioning plan will result in that property being left in an appropriate fashion.

Mr. Offer: When will these orders take effect? When can the people expect to get certain protection?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is a good question, and it was not prompted, I am sure, by members on the other side of the House who said, "Ask when."

We want to move expeditiously and comprehensively and we want the input from the people in the neighbourhood. We will have a public meeting of the people in the neighbourhood to look at the control order and make comments on it. We will be moving very quickly to have that control order in effect. Subsequent to that, we will ask the company to remove any soils which we consider must be removed under criteria which will be established.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with respect to the Wyda investment. The minister will be aware that this summer the standing committee on public accounts heard evidence, which was uncontradicted and which it accepted, showing that during an 11-day period between April 19 and April 30, 1986, $1.5 million of the public's money was disbursed through Wyda to a number of creditors.

The minister will know that of that amount, more than $462,000 went to the president, Avi Dobzinski, personally, with respect to a shareholder's loan, and that debt was never substantiated to the satisfaction of the committee or of the auditors who looked at it. He will know that $584,670 went to a related company called Budgrove Ltd. in Britain, and that debt was never substantiated to the satisfaction of the members of the committee. He is aware that the monthly budget of this company --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Pope: --went from $454,000 in May 1986 down to $175,000 in June 1986. He is aware of all these circumstances and that $3 million of the taxpayers' money has been lost. Why will he not have a judicial inquiry into this mess?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We do not consider that the investment has been lost. We are still hoping the company will continue. We have not been very happy with the information that was forthcoming or with the information for which we asked. That is one reason we had Peat Marwick go in, and we will be looking at the results of their investigation over the next couple of days.

Mr. Pope: We are talking about $3 million of the taxpayers' money. We are talking about incompetence at the highest levels of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. We are talking about the direction of funds as a result of a meeting on April 10 in a way that the IDEA Corp. board of directors did not contemplate and that changed the essential nature of the investment. We are talking about a situation where the Ontario Development Corp. refused money for a forensic audit, when we asked for it in September 1986.

We are talking about a situation where the Ontario Development Corp. refused to cooperate in helping the public accounts committee to get the proper information. We are talking about a situation --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Pope: --where the minister's office was personally involved in a discussion of this matter and where the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was involved in a meeting when the evidence was reviewed before it was given to the committee. Will the minister have an judicial inquiry, or are we going to have to call in the Ontario Provincial Police?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member is talking about the IDEA Corp., which he set up with a board of directors under his appointment. He is talking about loose controls. I hate to hear somebody who was a minister in the previous government make such comments about ODC, a group of highly respected people who are trying to do a job and have been very co-operative with the committee.

INSURANCE AVAILABILITY

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions about the insurance crisis in this province. The minister has frequently told the House that, in his opinion, there is no problem with the availability of insurance. On November 27, the minister said, "There is not a policyholder who cannot get insurance." Is that still the minister's position or is he prepared to admit today that there are many organizations and agencies that cannot get insurance in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The situation in the province today, to my knowledge, is that insurance is available for any organization that is prepared to pay for it. We have a situation where we have an affordability problem and an availability problem. It is my understanding that insurance is available. Whether it is affordable is another question.

Mrs. Grier: I would like to clarify the minister's understanding and ask him what he can do for an agency in my riding called Access for Parents and Children. Access provides noncustodial parents referred by the courts with an opportunity for supervised visits with their children. They have been unable to get abduction insurance. The minister's insurance pool could provide basic coverage, but could not find anybody willing to bid on abduction coverage.

Will the minister agree that an agency such as this cannot continue if it does not have that kind of coverage? Is he prepared to let this agency fold, as it will at the end of this week if it cannot get insurance, or is he prepared to solve the problem?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member has raised a very important issue. When it comes to things such as abduction insurance or child molestation insurance, there is no question it is a very difficult problem. Notwithstanding that, to my knowledge, we have had similar cases and we have been able to find that kind of coverage. If the member will send me the details, I will be happy to pursue it for her.

LAKE POLLUTION

Mr. Ward: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. One of the largest sources of pollution in the Great Lakes is the Windermere basin in Hamilton harbour. When will the minister take some action to see that this major source of contaminants is cleaned up?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am afraid I could not hear the question.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member repeat the question?

Mr. Ward: The members opposite show the same disregard for the city of Hamilton as they did when they were the government.

When will the Ministry of the Environment take action to ensure that the Windermere basin in Hamilton harbour is cleaned up?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member is likely aware, I had a meeting with representatives of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth and the city of Hamilton.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No, there were no other people there, other than the municipal representatives.

14:40

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology regarding Wyda. I would like to quote what David MacKinnon, head of the Ontario Development Corp., told the standing committee on public accounts on November 13, 1986. He said, "We have scrutinized [Wyda's] month-to-month financial statements in recent months and noted the changes therein, and we have satisfied ourselves that the investment is needed to develop the company's product...."

Yesterday the minister told this House that he wanted a receiver to review the operations of Wyda to determine the value of the technology and the ultimate viability of the enterprise. Who is right? Is the minister now telling the House that this investment was not being properly scrutinized by ODC and that Mr. MacKinnon misled the public accounts committee?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I believe Mr. MacKinnon, who is a very honourable man, has done a great job at ODC since coming there approximately one year ago to clean up the mess that was made over a number of years. I believe Mr. MacKinnon stands by the comments he made the other day. The honourable member will recall that one of the reasons we went to Mr. Dobzinski was to get additional information from him for the public accounts committee, which was considering giving him additional funding. At that time, he did not oblige us by giving us that information. That is one of the reasons we brought in the receivers.

Mr. Pope: The minister knows full well that it was not the public accounts committee that asked for additional funding. He will know it was a request from that ministry for additional funding for that company.

We have a situation where the Premier (Mr. Peterson) of this province refused to give documents to the public accounts committee. Mr. Carman of his office, his principal secretary, refused to give us documents. The Ontario Development Corp. promised it would have a full audit done of the Wyda books. It came in with a financial review and admitted it did not audit. The Ontario Development Corp. told the public accounts committee it was not prepared to put up the money for a forensic audit, not only of this company and the individuals connected with it but also with respect to other individuals who benefited from this government investment.

The appointment of a receiver has nothing to do with getting $462,000 back from Avi Dobzinski. It has nothing to do with getting $584,000 plus back from Budgrove Ltd. What steps is the minister going to take to get the taxpayers' money back from these people and these companies? Why will he not have a judicial inquiry? He knows what has gone on is improper. Do we have to call in the Ontario Provincial Police to get this mess sorted out? Why does the minister not have a judicial inquiry?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We feel that having the company Peat Marwick go in and do an audit of the books will answer some of the questions the member is asking, questions to which we also want to know the answers.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware of a company named Telkom located in his riding, where the 80 employees went to work on Friday, November 21, 1986, and went back to work on Monday, November 24, to find the company had moved out on the weekend. A letter was sent out to those 80 employees by the company on September 5, stating: "Your improved efforts have begun to make a success of our Canadian operation. The quality and production levels have improved, and I wish to take this opportunity to thank all of you."

When is the minister going to bring in legislation to force companies such as this to justify a plant closure before it can let 80 people in his riding go, without jobs, simply allow them to hang as they did, and then move out on a Saturday, completely abandoning the plant? When is he going to bring in legislation to enforce corporate responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We have indicated for some time that we are preparing legislation along this line. Perhaps my friends in the third party have forgotten the accord. This is a matter to be brought forward within the two-year period of the accord. The last time I checked, we were in the 18th month. We are well along in our preparation for legislation improving this very important area in Ontario's protection.

One of the problems is that we took a look at the justification legislation in every other jurisdiction of Canada, including Manitoba. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? There is not any.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: When the Minister of Labour was in the official opposition he had no problem with advocating justification legislation. Why can he not bring it in now that he is in the government?

Is the minister aware that, in addition to this company just running out of our country, during the time it was located here, in the last year, it received subsidies under the following programs: Futures, training in business and industry, the job development federally and the work activity program. All of these programs subsidized the wages of this company.

Can the minister tell me whether there has been any investigation to find out whether this money can be recouped or what guarantees were given in return for this money?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I regret that the member for Windsor-Riverside has asked the question of the wrong minister, but since I am on my feet and answering the question, I will remind him and my friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) that it was my constituency office that raised the issue originally with the employment standards branch. I also remind and inform my friend from Windsor-Riverside that today an order to pay for $69,300 was issued for the seven weeks' termination notice that was not given.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour has a response to a question previously asked.

RACE RELATIONS

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Yesterday the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) asked what I intended to do to remove an Enemy of Rambo doll called Nomad from the shelves of Ontario stores.

First, I want to indicate that all of us on the government side of the House and, I am sure, all members of the House share the concern expressed by my colleague that a toy promoting this kind of negative stereotyping of a particular race would be offered to children at any time, but particularly at this time of year when goodwill and brotherhood really ought to be what we are thinking about.

This morning I had a chance to speak with Mike Richards, who is the vice-president of marketing for Coleco Canada, the manufacturer of this doll. I am pleased to advise the House and the honourable member that Coleco Canada has agreed to request all distributors of the doll to withdraw the doll from their shelves immediately.

Mr. Richards assures me that Coleco will be sending letters to its distributors this afternoon with this request, and for those who are involved in those stores who happen to be seeing the provincial parliament being televised, I ask them to accede to this request immediately.

Mr. Allen: I want to thank the minister for his quick action on that, and the company for its prompt response.

May I ask the minister as a supplementary to sit down with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) to examine the question of the adequacy of our group defamation legislation and procedures in this province?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am certainly willing to discuss with both of my colleagues the matters that have been raised by the member.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Solicitor General. The Attorney General has finally clarified a position he has been trying to put forward in this House for many months -- that the government has nothing to do with the laying of charges -- and this afternoon he has finally fessed up that the Solicitor General is, in fact, in a position to tell the police when to press charges.

I draw to the minister's attention the Retail Business Holidays Act, subsection 2(2):

"No person employed by or acting on behalf of a person carrying on a retail business...shall,"

"(

a) sell or offer for sale any goods or services...."

Having said that the police are to enforce the Retail Business Holidays Act this Sunday, is the Solicitor General instructing them to lay charges under subsection 2(2) against employees as well?

14:50

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I do not want us to become involved in this House, as we so often do, in a game of semantics; so I trust anything I say will be taken in the appropriate vein in that regard.

Communications from the Ministry of the Solicitor General go through the Ontario Police Commission, which is a very viable entity under my jurisdiction and which makes direct communication with all police forces. I do not instruct by means of the OPC exactly against whom, and in what circumstances, police forces are to lay charges, but I do make it known through the OPC that the laws of the province must be upheld. That goes out quite frequently to police forces -- more frequently now certainly than in the past -- to remind them of their responsibility to maintain the laws of the province through the

interpretations they place on the laws, which are clearly written out for them.

Mr. Grossman: We know the minister, through the mechanism he has just described, does not instruct police forces to charge anyone specifically, but he may indicate that "vigorous law enforcement take place with respect to the Retail Business Holidays Act." That is a quote from his spokesman, Mr. Norton.

Can the Solicitor General simply tell us whether he will be indicating to them through that process that both subsections 2(1) and 2(2) of the Retail Business Holidays Act should be enforced and that therefore they should be laying charges against both employers and employees? Is that the general instruction he has issued?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: My instructions are more general than that. As I indicated before, I do not attempt through the OPC to try to tell police forces under what sections of any act they are to lay charges. In my request yesterday to the OPC, I asked that it send a directive to police forces reminding them that the laws of the province must be upheld, particularly, at this time of the year, the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Essex North would like to ask a question. He is waiting patiently.

FLOODING

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister will be aware from the figures I released on Friday that the levels of Lakes St. Clair, Huron and Erie in October were above the previous high levels recorded for that month. Now that the International Joint Commission has publicly stated that measures can be taken to lower the levels in the Great Lakes, will the minister take immediate action to lower the water levels in the Great Lakes?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I also have read the report from the International Joint Commission, and it has not made that kind of statement. The statement is very clear that they will be examining all the options that might be undertaken. They are not suggesting that they are going to take action on those initiatives.

Mr. Hayes: I suggest the minister read this report very carefully, especially page 4. I am asking the minister to take action; I am not asking what kind of action the IJC is taking. He should be using some of his authority.

When the minister's task force travelled around the province and toured some of the areas with the high water problem, several people and groups told the task force that the way to solve the problem of flooding was to lower the water levels. The task force responded that discussing lowering the levels was not part of its mandate. Will the minister tell us why the task force was not allowed to discuss ways and means of lowering the lake levels?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The task force has done one of the best jobs that has ever been done in examining the whole circumstance. It is very clear that the water levels in the Great Lakes are the responsibility of the two federal governments and that the provincial government does not have the ability to enter into the level controls of the Great Lakes.

To specify what I told the member previously, it is very specific that the IJC is reviewing the recommendations they are suggesting; it is not taking action.

On many occasions I have talked to the Honourable Tom McMillan in Ottawa and to the IJC, to all those people. It is obvious, as the IJC has suggested, that the federal government should be the lead agency; it should take the initiative, and Ontario is most willing to cooperate with it when it takes that initiative.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Ms. Hart: My question is of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. In my riding of York East, I have quite a large number of immigrant women who call my constituency office asking what services are available to them to deal with their problems. One question that comes up from time to time is what services are available in the area of family violence. Does the minister have any programs that deal with these very real concerns that are being raised?

Hon. Ms. Munro: Yes. As I said many times before, the ministry owes much of its success to the fact that our programs are placed within the community so that, as a first instance, immigrant women in the province have access to services from organizations that are friendly to them.

We have funded specific programs for women dealing with family violence. In fact, I have just authorized payments to three shelter organizations to do that very thing. We have also funded women's centres in general to provide them with skills money to make sure women enter into the world of work as early as possible.

Ms. Hart: The minister has raised another area of interest that is raised quite frequently in my constituency office. It deals with how immigrant women get into the work force in Ontario. Can the minister please elaborate as to what services are available?

I am comfortable that we will be able to continue working on these kinds of programs. I know the members over there are all interested since they all know women.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 30, the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) gave notice yesterday of his dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to his question. This matter will be debated at 6 p.m. this evening.

PETITIONS

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. O'Connor: I have the honour of presenting a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"As members of the board of directors of the People for Sunday Association of Canada and as members of the Ontario Committee for the Regulation of Sunday and Holiday Retailing, we urge the government to oppose any changes in the Retail Business Holidays Act that would permit additional stores to open on Sundays and holidays, and respectfully ask that all three political parties take under consideration the sentiments as expressed by 108,892 Ontario citizens who have duly signed postcards, here attached, so stating their opposition to additional Sunday and holiday retailing."

15:00

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Oakville has been good enough to provide to me these petitions against an open Sunday, which I am delighted to have. They should really all be directed to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), who has made clear that he supports an open Sunday.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If I can have your attention, there are other members who wish to present petitions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. McGuigan: I have a petition signed by several hundred people in the Niagara-St. Catharines-Welland area.

"Moneys in company pension funds have been considered a trust on behalf of employees and a condition of employment. Therefore, we, the undersigned, protest the proposed legislation of the Ontario government to permit the withdrawal of moneys from company pension funds, whether they are considered surplus or by any other term that might be applied, and favour legislation to limit the ratio of funds banked in relation to payout on a one-to-one basis unless full indexing re the cost of living has been applied or adjusted for both the present and past years of the high inflationary period."

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr. Cousens: I have petitions from constituents in Thornhill and Richmond Hill, from condominiums at 7811 Yonge Street and 140 Confederation Way in Thornhill, 40 Baif Boulevard, 50 Baif Boulevard and 70 Baif Boulevard in Richmond Hill and 21 Elizabeth Street. All these condominium owners beg leave to petition the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"The undersigned beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario strongly urging the government to review the current treatment of condominiums with regard to assessment so that condominiums will be assessed on the same basis as owner-occupied, single-family residences."

These petitions are presented in the hope that the government will begin to resolve this very serious problem for people on fixed incomes who can no longer continue to pay the high taxes they are currently being charged.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved first reading of Bill 166,

An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Contrary to what the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) says, this bill is going to do a great deal for the tourist industry and for northern Ontario. Nothing but good can flow from this bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to

section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Since a number of members want to order their busy schedules this afternoon, I can announce to the House that it is expected the debate will be completed this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman: I do not know about that being a point of order, but thank you.

section 18:

Mr. Leluk: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the amendment to

section 18.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Leluk: If I might start over again, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the amendment to

section 18, which deals with sexual orientation.

In my 15 years as a member of this Legislative Assembly, I believe we have had very few more sensitive, emotional and contentious issues before this House as the one that is currently before us.

Much has been said over the past number of days, and it is difficult not to be somewhat repetitive. I will try not to be. However, I feel the importance of this bill before the House requires repetition, because many of the things that are being said here and have been said in this Legislature have fallen on deaf ears across the House.

This last-minute amendment, which would add the words "sexual orientation" to the Ontario Human Rights Code, would prohibit discrimination against homosexuals and lesbians. The government's stated purpose for Bill 7 was to bring various laws, including the Ontario Human Rights Code, into conformity with the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 15 of the charter, however, is silent on the matter of discrimination by reason of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation refers to a sexual preference which includes homosexuality and lesbianism, and which could include paedophilia and necrophilia.

Since there is no existing conflict between the Ontario code and the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this regard,

section 18 of the code need not be amended at this time. This amendment meets none of the traditional requirements for human rights protection that protect morally neutral and unchangeable status and not behaviour. Therefore, this is an inappropriate addition to the Human Rights Code.

It is generally accepted that sex as a protected classification in human rights legislation refers to gender, the inherent characteristic of being male or female, and not to sexual activities or propensities.

15:10

Courts in the US have consistently held that the prohibition of sex discrimination in civil rights statutes and ordinances is not intended to protect homosexuals, lesbians and transsexuals. Canadian courts have adopted a similar

interpretation in this regard. If passed, the amendment will have the effect of granting to one group in our society a special status or privileges not enjoyed by others.

The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) stated during his remarks that it is not the purpose of the legislation to exalt the status of the gays. I beg to differ with him in this regard, as do many others. The provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee freedom from discrimination based on morally neutral or unchangeable status and not behaviour. Homosexuality is acquired behaviour; therefore, sexual orientation would create special privileges with respect to behaviour and not unchangeable status.

Once sexual orientation becomes enshrined in the code, if this amendment should pass in this House, it would become an accepted norm in society on the same basis as creed, colour, race, age, nationality, ethnic origin, etc. It would legitimize an alternative lifestyle on the same level as the traditional family. Should we expect chronic drinkers and smokers to be added to the Human Rights Code as a group because their behaviour may adversely affect their chances of employment? Where does one draw the line? Should criminal behaviour also be enshrined in the code?

In Ontario, homosexuals and lesbians currently enjoy the same legal rights and fundamental freedoms as any other citizen, rights of employment, freedom to conduct business, free speech, freedom of association, the exercising of religious preference, etc. Homosexuals cannot be dismissed from their employment except for just cause, the same as all other employees. One may disagree with a person's sexual preference without denying that person his or her rights.

In the November 25 Instant Hansard on page L-1545-1, the Attorney General stated that "we must regard moral questions as personal matters, not governmental matters." As the chief law officer of this province, does he not agree that it is difficult to divorce morality from the law?

The Attorney General makes reference to the late US president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and to the governor of the state of New York, Mario Cuomo. He states that when President Kennedy met with the Houston ministers, they said to him that he could not be president of the US. When he asked why not, they said, "You cannot be President of this country, because you have a particular moral value as a Roman Catholic that makes you unsuitable."

The Attorney General goes on to say, "Ever since Houston, I do not believe that in a pluralistic society, no matter how important our own moral values are, no matter how firmly we hold to them and no matter how they regulate every aspect of our lives, we can permit this Legislature to enact the moral values of anybody, no matter how firmly they are held."

I would like to bring to the Attorney General's attention a comment with which he is no doubt familiar. British Chief Justice Lord Denning, on the topic of divorcing morality from the law arose, warned, "Without religion, there can be no morality and without morality, there can be no law."

To use the coercive power of law to force citizens of this province to violate their consciences or religious convictions is fundamentally repugnant to the constitutional freedom of conscience and religion that we enjoy in this province.

I want to talk about the process by which we find

section 18 of Bill 7 before this House. I represent 82,000 constituents in the riding of York West. I am proud to be standing up today speaking on this very contentious, sensitive and moral issue, because the citizens of my riding have been denied their democratic right to be heard on this issue.

When this government came into power, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) stood in this House and said his was going to be an open government with no doors and no barriers. His doors were always going to be open for the citizens of this province. He wanted to hear from them. The same government that talked about its openness has practised a form of closure before the fact by not allowing the people of this province an opportunity to be heard on this issue and to have input at some public forum. I cannot be critical enough of a government that does that type of thing. We all believe in the democratic process in this House.

It is fundamental to the political process we have enjoyed over the years, that is, we used to enjoy before that particular date, in may 1985.

I would like to quote some parts of letters I have received that deal with this very matter. Big Brothers of Canada, with 65 agencies in Ontario, including more than 4,000 Big Brothers and Sisters and some 1,500 volunteer board members, wrote to me, as I am sure they have written to all members in this House, stating, "We respectfully urge the government to reconsider this legislation, at least until there has been an opportunity for full public discussion and citizen input."

I received a letter from the Coalition for Family Values, which states, "Surely an issue that addresses some of the most difficult moral and religious concerns of Canadians cries out for thoughtful public debate and scrutiny."

I have another one from a concerned businessman in my constituency, who says, "I was shocked and alarmed to learn recently that an amendment to Bill 7 was introduced after second reading to the standing committee on administration of justice on May 6, 1986, by the insertion of `sexual orientation' in the Human Rights Code of Ontario." He goes on to say: "Why was this amendment smuggled in after second reading, thus short-circuiting normal and proper public consultation and scrutiny? This is a devious behaviour."

The brief from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada on homosexual legislation states: "The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada is deeply distressed at the hasty and secretive manner in which the Attorney General of Ontario and the provincial justice committee have rushed the amendments through committee and back into the Legislature behind closed doors, away from the circumspectful eye of the general public and without the benefit of informed public comment.

Surely an issue that addresses `some of the most difficult moral and religious concerns of Canadians,' to use the words of the federal government's Towards Equality report, cries out for public debate and scrutiny. It would be wrong for the Ontario Legislature to interpret the stillness of the public on this issue as a lack of public interest."

"The stillness of the public is not due to a lack of interest but, rather, to a lack of awareness about the amendment being proposed and its profound social and religious implications."

15:20

I have another one here from a business person in my riding, who says: "It has just been brought to my attention that the Ontario government is attempting to ram through a totally disgusting piece of legislation whose effect will be to force the population to hire homosexuals and to be penalized for refusing. I understand that this is an amendment added to Bill 7 after second reading, thereby preventing proper public input and discussion."

I have a letter from the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has been referred to on a number of occasions. It says: "We deplore the attempt to pass Bill 7 without the widespread consultation and discussion which will permit the citizens of Ontario to express their will concerning it. Therefore, we urgently request the government to postpone any action on Bill 7 until such consultation has taken place. Moreover, we ask our fellow citizens to write or telephone at once to their MPP."

The member for St. George (Ms. Fish), who spoke in this House yesterday, made some statements to which I take very strong exception. As a Catholic, I take strong exception to the member for St. George who, during her presentation, accused the Roman Catholic Church, which is my church, of promoting a terrible campaign of hatred against homosexuals. She called members of this caucus and others in this House bigots.

When she talks about her personal morality, maybe she does not believe in the church or in marriage, but that is her belief and her right, to which she is entitled. On the other hand, I happen to be someone who has a religion. I am Catholic. I believe in the family and I believe in marriage in the church.

Did the member for St. George say to this House yesterday that the two million to four million Ontarians who are members of Catholic churches are all bigots promoting hatred on this particular issue? Is she saying that the churches do not have the right in this province to express a moral and religious view on this particular legislation? I believe she owes the members of this House on both sides an apology for having made those statements. I resent them very strongly.

I commend the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), who had the courage of their convictions to stand up in this House and speak what they believe in and what their constituents have been telling them they believe in.

Although the Premier is limiting discussion on that side of the House by asking the members of the government to vote in favour of this amendment, I find it very difficult to believe that members such as the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) or the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) will stand up in this House and vote for this legislation. I have my doubts.

The people in this province are going to be watching to see how the vote goes on this issue. One cannot hide behind the fact that weather conditions are bad or one is ill or is going to be away today for some other reason. The people will expect each and every member in this House to stand up and be counted on this issue, because it is a very important issue. Those members who choose to stay out of this House purposely because they do not want to stand up and be counted will, by their absence, be voting for this amendment.

Mr. Laughren: Voting with their feet.

Mr. Leluk: I hope you are going to be here to vote for it.

Mr. Rae: We will. Don't worry.

Mr. Leluk: I know you will.

I would like to put a few more quotes on the record from letters from within my own riding. In a letter from the Queensway Cathedral, the Rev. Ralph Rutledge wrote to me and stated:

"On behalf of the Queensway Cathedral, we express grave concern regarding the sexual orientation clause which has been submitted for inclusion in Bill 7. The inclusion of a sexual orientation clause is providing for a particular group of individuals special recognition which is not accorded any other group within society. Homosexuals and lesbians presently enjoy the same legal rights and fundamental freedoms, such as employment, freedom to conduct business, free speech, freedom of association, the exercising of religious preferences, as do heterosexuals."

He further says: "As the intent of the legislation is to provide special recognition to homosexuals and lesbians, the rest of society, in effect, will be experiencing reverse discrimination in face of this legislation. The implications of such legislation are profound, including:

1. "Sexual orientation is a vague, undefined and open-ended phrase. Not only would it extend legal support to homosexual behaviour, but it could open the door to other sexual behaviour, such as sexual interest in children and animals."

Mr. Wildman: Oh, come on.

Mr. Leluk: I am reading a letter. Why do you not go back to sleep? I am quoting somebody. To continue:

2. "Social agencies, such as those that provide services and companionship to children of single parents and others in need of care, could lose their right to set their own standards of conduct for volunteers and employees.

3. "Schools, day care centres, or group homes could be forced to employ those whose code of conduct and sexual orientation is incompatible with the established practices of the religious community.

4. "The legislation could affect the traditional right of religious groups to hire only those staff members whose lifestyle is faithful to the beliefs and practices of the religious community." I know the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) will agree with that 100 per cent.

15:30

5. "Such an amendment could remove the unique status of marriage and the family as the fundamental unit of our society.

6. "The family could be redefined. Homosexual and lesbian marriages could be legalized, together with the adoption of children.

7. "Government and other agencies could be obliged to extend insurance and other benefits to homosexual partners.

8. "Home owners would lose all freedom in deciding whether or not to rent to homosexuals or lesbians.

9. "Employers would lose the right to refuse employment to homosexuals, who in flaunting their particular lifestyle conduct themselves in a manner incompatible with the standards set by their employers for dealing with customers and other employees."

I have a host of letters here, but I am not going to take the time of this House to read them into the record. Nevertheless, they are important and are concerned with this amendment before the House.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) spoke on the question of the democratic process by which this amendment arrived before us in this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Chairman, can we contain those NDP members on my left.

He said the manner in which this amendment arrived here denied the public its right to be heard. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) got up in this House yesterday and began to espouse the fact that there had been public hearings on this amendment. He was asked by the member for High Park-Swansea to provide some dates when this took place. The fact is there have been no public hearings, none at all.

The member for High Park-Swansea then began to discuss the process, which he called a mockery of what we know to be the traditional political process, because there were no public hearings. He stated that he was going to boycott the vote because the whole process was a sham. We all have to search our consciences as members of this Legislature, and I do not believe one can hide behind that kind of statement, that because he does not agree with the process, he is going to boycott the vote when it takes place.

Mr. Wildman: I agree with you on that.

Mr. Leluk: Then perhaps the member for Algoma will be absent for the vote.

Since there are other speakers who want to be heard, I will close by asking all members of this House to search their consciences and to be here to be counted when the vote is taken. This is too important an issue for members to walk away from and turn their backs on. I hope that when the vote is taken we are going to see the 50 Liberal members on the government side all standing up one way or another and being counted.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am honoured to take

part in this debate as the Minister of Labour and as the minister responsible for the Human Rights Code. I rise to offer my support for this amendment.

When the issue first came before the House, back in 1981, I voted in favour of the amendment and I shall do so again today. I commend those colleagues whose minds have changed or whose thinking has evolved from opposition to support on this matter during the intervening five years and who have had the determination, or will show the determination later today or tomorrow, to say so. In matters of principle and conviction, sincerity is always a little more important than consistency.

To say that the debate thus far has been a passionate one is to speak in a grand understatement. Members have spoken with strong emotion and with deep feeling. To some extent -- I say this with respect and deference to my colleagues who oppose this amendment -- the strength of the emotion and the depth of the feeling are attributable to a misconception of what this amendment intends and what it achieves.

This amendment does not approve or condone homosexuality; rather, it disapproves and condemns discrimination. The amendment does not confer special status; it attempts to ensure equal treatment. This amendment will not lead to the ruination of the traditional family; it simply says that those persons who do not live in traditional family ways will not be treated as pariahs or social outcasts in our community. It is on these three aspects of the debate that I want to spend a few short minutes.

The Ontario Human Rights Code is the great statement of this Legislative Assembly and of the people it represents and serves that in 1986 discrimination in Ontario is unacceptable, intolerable and totally undeserving of any claim upon our hearts and minds. To abhor discrimination is a simple thing in our modern age. It is the right thing and the only decent thing. The code abhors discrimination because discrimination is unjust and it is right to abhor injustice. This is clearly set out in the

preamble to the code. Let me read one part of it.

"Whereas it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and wellbeing of the community and the province...."

I suggest to the members of the House that the key phrases in that passage are "dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination." The code does not prefer one religious belief above another, one creed above another, one race above another or one ethnic origin above another. It does not express the superiority of one set of personal practices above another.

Similarly, the amendment before the House does not offer an opinion one way or another on the matter of homosexuality. The code says discrimination against persons on the grounds set out in the essential areas of life is forbidden. The amendment says discrimination in those essential areas against persons who are or are perceived to be homosexuals because of their real or perceived homosexuality will also be forbidden.

Certain members have made the argument that this amendment would confer special status on homosexuals. That is simply not true. The Human Rights Code does not elevate one group above another, nor must it allow, through omission, for diminishing one group below another. The code simply equalizes. It does so because we in Ontario hold fast and dear to the belief that every person is deserving of respect by virtue of the simple fact that he is a person, no less or no more than any other member of the human family.

This belief lies at the very heart of our democracy, indeed of all democracies. Equality is the foundation on which rests the concept of one person, one vote. It is the very life strength of our society. It is this belief that inspires and gives meaning to our laws in the way we govern ourselves for the benefit of everyone in our community.

15:40

Is it conceivable that in Ontario we would be able to say, "I am authorized by law to refuse you shelter, food, goods, services and common decency, the common essentials of life, because I consider you or your group inferior to me?" In Ontario in 1986, it is not conceivable. In Ontario in 1986, it should not be allowed.

The real tragedy of discrimination is that it wounds and humiliates its victims. It does more. It also poisons the discriminator with the slow, insidious poison of intolerance and then, soon and eventually, indifference. But it does even more still. It corrupts the society that gives it sanctuary. I stand opposed to that kind of corruption and intolerance, and I stand opposed to that kind of indifference.

The third and most commonly repeated argument against this amendment has been that it augurs the destruction of the traditional family. There is simply no basis in law or in fact for this. The code is very clear on the meaning of family, marriage and spouse in its definition sections. It leaves no room for doubt. There is no ambiguity in the words used in terms of the opposite sex. The amendment can in no way impair the clarity of these

definitions, nor will it.

It was a week ago today that I flew to Quebec to a conference of ministers of labour. I arrived early that evening. Because it was possible that the vote would be held last week, I immediately sought to make arrangements to make a quick return to Toronto if the vote was held on Wednesday or Thursday.

On my way to dinner that evening, I was being driven to dinner by one of the assistants of my colleague from Quebec, the Honourable Pierre Paradis. He asked me why I had to come back for an important vote; what it was on. I said it was to include an amendment on sexual orientation in the Human Rights Code. His response was an interesting one. He said: "Why is this such a great debate? We have had sexual orientation in our code for seven years now. It has had absolutely no great controversy, caused no great effect," the kind of which we have heard in this Legislature.

What he sought to indicate to me, and I want to impart to all my colleagues in the Legislature, is that a lot of the concerns and fears that have been raised here during this debate simply will not happen with the passage of this amendment. It has not happened in Quebec, and it will not happen in Ontario.

As Minister of Labour, as a minister in the government and as a resident of Ontario, I do not think we ought to allow the laws of this province to permit casting aside as pariahs or outsiders any group within our community, without any lawful criminal cause. Long ago, decent and civilized culture spurned this credo of rejection, but it embraced the better belief that because all persons were created equal, all persons belonged in the community.

I urge my colleagues to consider the issues on the basis of the objectives and the statement of public policy expressed by the Human Rights Code; that is, on the basis of rejecting discrimination, of affirming equality, of rejecting distrust and suspicion and advancing respect and understanding.

I urge my colleagues to ask themselves, each and every one of us, whether we are not indeed our brother's keeper. Although our brothers may be unlike us, or perhaps misguided or in error or even astray, are they not none the less our brothers, and thus are we not none the less their keepers?

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate the opportunity to speak and oppose this

section of the bill. Having listened attentively to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), it struck me that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) should have been the person leading off the debate, not the Attorney General, because the Human Rights Code is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. I say that as the minister departs the assembly.

The point I am making is that Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to

section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is not

an act to amend the Human Rights Code in any fundamental way. If it were, we should have had the Minister of Labour lead off the debate.

The Attorney General posed two questions or saw the problem as dual. I quote him as he spoke on November 25, when he stated:

"I sense that the difficulty some honourable members have about this amendment is dictated by one of two possibilities, both of which I respect. The first possibility is that it is opposed out of a kind of fear, and the second is that it is opposed on moral grounds. May I deal with each of those very briefly?" He goes on to deal with them, and I will quote a little more later.

I sense that the issue has two parts; one is form or process, and the other is substance. I have listened to my colleagues speak in the past days, and much has been made of the process or the form that has evolved in terms of the bill. Succinctly put, the issue is that if we as an assembly have some intention to amend the Human Rights Code in a substantive way, then we should introduce an amendment to the Human Rights Code and bring it forward as such. We should not slip it in the back door, so to speak, as a matter necessary to accommodate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because that is not so.

It has taken on

an act of dishonesty, if I may be so bold as to put it that way, to introduce a substantive amendment that is not necessary. It was not originally in the bill. It was introduced while the bill was in committee and therefore lacked some of the process that one would normally engage in if it were a bill put forward to amend the Human Rights Code.

I was here, as some other members were, some years ago when we made substantial amendments to the Human Rights Code. I was concerned in the process, which covered the province in a very full and open way. I recall the Honourable Robert Elgie at that time was Minister of Labour. I am sure he was tormented for many months when dealing with the amendments that were introduced. I was concerned, and I was not reluctant in any way to state my concerns. I followed the minister, or he followed me, in refutation of some of the proposed amendments. I do not apologize for that. As a matter of fact, the code was amended substantially following that process before it was finally adopted by the assembly.

15:50

It was that invitation to the public to come forward before the committee and it was the very thorough review of the proposed amendments that resulted in the changes that took place. I point this out simply as a source of major concern by some of my colleagues in terms of the manner in which the amendment was introduced.

I ask the Attorney General, if he is listening, to withdraw this

section and to introduce it in the way I have mentioned -- that is, as an amendment as such to the Human Rights Code -- so that it can be dealt with in that fashion. That is the fundamental test of democracy. It is what we have been hearing from many of the members and it would be a healthy exercise.

The government obviously is adamant in ensuring that the legislation as amended will now go through. Maybe the process that has been suggested, maybe the introduction of an amendment as I have mentioned, would not be productive because the government has made up its mind and will not be influenced in any way. If it is impervious to public opinion, then why waste the time of the assembly? Maybe that is the message we are getting from the Attorney General.

The Attorney General went on, in covering his two points of opposition -- that is, opposition because of fear or opposition because of moral reasons -- by making the following statements. Let me read the brief few lines that are here. He said:

"I do not believe that this bill, properly understood, has anything to do with those moral values. We must regard moral questions as personal matters, not governmental matters, because as soon as a moral question becomes a governmental question, then we have a tyranny over which there is no control. I do not believe we can permit this Legislature to enact the moral values of anybody, no matter how firmly they are held."

That struck me as rather strange. I have never seen the law that way. I have seen the law evolve from customs and mores. If the mores or acceptable behaviour become the morals of society, morals are often manifested in terms of legislation. I suppose a good example of such legislation is our Criminal Code, which certainly deals with the oughts and the ought-nots, what one should do and what one should not do. We have it clearly defined in terms of our whole educational process.

If I might turn to the Education Act, I would like to read subsection 235 (1)(c), which was picked up in the previous legislation, the Schools Administration Act, as some members may recall.

Here we are dealing with the duties of teachers. "It is the duty of a teacher...to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues."

There surely is no clearer manifestation of public policy in legislation. We are talking about the teaching of moral precepts through our school systems and those precepts are religious precepts as well. When we come to the moral issue, we have a great deal of soul-searching to do, as has been said here today. I usually respect the views of my colleagues, whoever they are. I think some have been strident and some have been most opinionated. I do not think any of us should be intolerant no matter what.

I do not appreciate being accused of bigotry or intolerance, any more than anyone else does. If one cannot tolerate intolerance, one becomes intolerant oneself. As politicians, we have to have skin thick enough to ward off those types of remarks and not chastise too severely those colleagues who may not agree with one another.

I see the moral issue as a very strong one, the issue of religious faith. It was interesting listening to the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) in this debate. He did a great deal of soul-searching. He is a psychiatrist and a very thoughtful person, who gave the professional opinion, as I understood it, that homosexuality was really a matter of environmental influence subject to, or together with, the predisposition that was there as a result of the person's makeup.

As I understood the speech of my colleague the member for St. George yesterday, she was convinced it was not environmental, that it was really a matter of biology. I suppose the makeup of the person predetermines that person's orientation in sexual matters.

Here we have a difference of views from two members, which may prompt different conclusions. At the same time, a great many members, certainly in our party, suggest that if the Liberal Party opened its caucus doors to others, one would sense or experience a considerable debate on this issue as well.

Mr. Ashe: This is putting it mildly.

Mr. Taylor: Am I underestimating? Hyperbole is not one of my trademarks, so I did not want to overstate it.

I think there is a great deal of division within the Liberal Party. I know their sense of loyalty and oneness will be demonstrated in an almost unanimous vote. There are some who have the power of their convictions and who stand firm -- and for them I have nothing but respect -- from all sides of the House, even in the New Democratic Party. I always hesitate to analyse that particular party, and its members thank me on occasion for that. I suspect there might even be one or two members there who express some difference in opinion.

Here we have people with deep moral and religious convictions who have been raised to hold certain views on what is right and what is wrong, who think it is wrong. They sense that what we are doing is actually creating a privileged position for a certain segment of our society that does not need it.

16:00

One concern I have with this legislation, and had with the legislation in 1981 when the amendments and the extensive changes took place, is the process. It is not just what is written in the law but also the implementation of the law, the procedure. It is the Ontario Human Rights Commission itself. It is the opportunity for people of ill will to exploit a piece of legislation such as this to advance their own cause.

I see the potential for abuse of the system. Looking at the report of the Ontario Human Rights Commission for last year, I note that it had a backlog of 1,200 complaints and had to take on an additional 47 staff members. It is a very active industry. I can understand that we might be inviting more activity in this area, which is not bad if it discharges the true intent and spirit of the legislation.

If someone comes to you for employment, I am sure that most of the time you would not know and would not care what that person's sexual orientation is, whether it is heterosexual, homosexual or whatever type of sexual activities he or she engages in; it would not show. You do not write it across your T-shirt or hold up a placard and campaign or advertise it. You do not do that type of thing.

It is a personal matter. It is something that should be respected. However, if a person chooses to manifest that orientation in some way, whether it is by dress or other type of behaviour or makeup, that person is inviting discrimination.

All discrimination is not necessarily bad. I think of the Premier in the choice of his cabinet. I sat back and thought: "On what basis would the Premier choose his cabinet? Would matters of sex come into it? Would he want a woman in his cabinet? Would he want some ethnic, racial or cultural backgrounds represented? Would he want certain religions represented?"

As a mental exercise, I went through the cabinet to see to what extent discrimination was exercised in the makeup of the Liberal cabinet. I suggest there is probably nothing wrong with that. Whether we know it or not, we often discriminate but not in a harmful way. I do not think at present there is ill will in terms of discriminating in a harmful way because of someone's predisposition.

If a law is not needed, why pass it when it can open the opportunity for others to abuse it and victimize it? This troubles me. As legislators, we should get out into the province. We should see what we are doing. We should see how the legislation translates. I have spoken on this in connection with business, in connection with the rules, regulations and obstacles. I do not care whether it concerns housing, small businessmen or whatever. We sit here and pass laws.

We brag about the number of laws we have passed in a year. The hallmark of a government's success is the amount of legislation it puts through this House. I question whether this is beneficial to the people of Ontario who often are only crying to get the government off their backs.

I look at this and I wonder why we have to do it. In my riding, I must confess I have had one letter of support from a constituent and another letter from someone who was but is no longer a constituent. However, like other members, I have had thousands of representations, collectively or individually, in opposition to this legislation.

I sense a will of the majority there. As a legislator, I have respect for the will of the majority. In a democratic society, it is the will of the majority that governs. Again, I wonder why it is so necessary for the government to accede to an amendment to a bill drafted by the previous government that brings various statutes into line with the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an amendment that was not there, was not necessary but has been worked in in this way.

It is the process and the need for this that concern me, as they have concerned my colleagues; and as they are of fundamental concern to citizens with regard to the morality and the impingement on religious faith. I am anxious to put myself on the record and to ask why. What is prompting this?

Are we trying now to develop affirmative action programs? The Human Rights Code provides for affirmative action programs. If there is a group or a class of persons that are disadvantaged in some way, there are provisions within the Human Rights Code to discriminate in a reverse manner to assist those persons. Therefore, if we carry this provision on sexual orientation into the Human Rights Code and apply the various other sections of that code, then we see the potential for abuse.

For example, there is a provision for a claimant to be awarded up to $10,000 for mental anguish. I have experienced cases, not personally but cases that have been brought to my attention, where the investigators under the commission -- and they are legion -- have called on persons and have insisted on some type of settlement. You negotiate. A business person or someone trying to get along is not very happy about being paraded before boards of inquiry or the human rights commission. Any cause of action is worth something, and the Attorney General, who is now here, knows that. It is worth something, and so you settle those things.

It is like the lady who was fired because she was not performing her function as a Santa Claus very well. The Attorney General may remember that. He should read about it. The children were not taking to her very well as Santa Claus. They were starting to doubt the existence of Santa Claus -- her credibility was not all that great -- and so she was let go. She made a claim to the human rights commission. There was a settlement, and I think $2,000 was awarded to her as a result of that claim, because she did not make a very good Santa Claus.

We have examples such as these where a system can be mined or exploited to advance someone else's position or for personal gain. We have to look at the act as a whole. If we brought in an amendment to the Human Rights Code and if the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for that code, carried the can, I am sure that would relieve the Attorney General of a lot; then we could let the process take place and we would get a better sense of how the public of Ontario feels about this type of amendment.

I have tried to be temperate and not to express too much bias. I subscribe in a personal sense to the position and the feelings of my constituents. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to put myself and the people of Prince Edward-Lennox on record in opposition to this

section of the bill.

16:10

Mr. Gillies: I am very pleased to join this debate and to join with the members of the House who will be voting -- and I might say in a personal way proudly voting -- in favour of the amendment to

section 18 of Bill 7.

I have been here in my seat through the past week for most of the debate, and I have tried to listen with varying degrees of patience to the arguments being made on both sides of this very controversial bill. I appreciate, as I am sure you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of the assembly do, that people have brought a great deal of conviction and passion, as my colleague said, to this debate.

While I disagree with many who have spoken on this bill, I do not believe things have been said by people in this debate out of convenience and I hope not out of politics; regardless of whether I as an individual believe them to be misguided or not, I believe these things to have been said with conviction.

We debate so many mundane things in this House. I am sure many members will agree with me that there are so many details of so many bills and so many things that, if changed or left unchanged, will not have a profound effect on our society and will not change in any way the degree of tolerance in our society.

This debate is different. I view this debate in the same way as we would have viewed the recent debate on Bill 8 and the changes brought forward to extend the rights to francophone citizens in our province. I view this debate in very much the same vein as I viewed the debate on the Constitution that was held in this House, where major issues, issues that affect the day-to-day lives of thousands of Ontario citizens are before us and where the ultimate decision on these crucial matters is left to the 125 people who are favoured by nine million electors to represent their views.

Conscious of this weighty responsibility, I look back to some very wise words indeed when the late, great President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, gave the following charge to the Massachusetts Legislature in 1961:

"For of those to whom much is given, much is required, and when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgement on each of us, recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state, our success or failure in whatever office we hold will be measured by the answers to four questions.

"First, were we truly men of courage? Second, were we truly men of judgement? Third, were we truly men of integrity; and finally, were we truly men of dedication?"

Under any one of those four criteria, and indeed taking those four criteria as a whole, I believe the right and just thing to do in this Legislature today is to correct a historic injustice and grant equal rights under our Human Rights Code to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. I believe this is in the best tradition and in keeping with the history of the House, and I say to my colleagues, many of whom I know disagree with me on this issue, it is very much in keeping with the finest traditions of the Progressive Conservative Party.

I draw members' attention to the introduction of the first Racial Discrimination Act by the Frost government in this great province; the introduction of the first Ontario Human Rights Code in the province by the Robarts government in 1962; and the amendment and the enrichment of the Ontario Human Rights Code by the Davis government in 1981. Now we have the opportunity to further extend and enrich the rights under that code.

Members ask themselves -- and I think it is a very legitimate question -- is this amendment necessary? Are homosexuals discriminated against in our society? I believe that to be the case. I have referred to a number of works on this subject and would like to quote from the book Equality Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which talks very specifically about the necessity for specific protection for these people. It states:

"The equal protection

section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

section 15, follows the pattern of all Canadian human rights enactments, except those in Quebec, in specifying sex among the prohibited grounds of discrimination while omitting sexual orientation. In the absence of specific legislative protection, Canadians who have complained formally of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation have attempted to gain standing under the heading of sex.

"One of the earlier cases, Damien vs. the Ontario Racing Commission, made it clear that complainants would not be allowed to read in `sexual orientation' where it was not written. Damien, an experienced racetrack groom, claimed he was fired for no other reason than that his employers learned he was homosexual. He complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission that he had been refused employment on the basis of sexual orientation.

The commission told Damien that it could not accept his complaint because the Ontario Human Rights Code does not prohibit discrimination on that ground, and therefore it lacked jurisdiction. Damien was obliged to seek his remedies in the courts in a civil action based on wrongful dismissal.

"In 1977, the human rights commission itself sought to remedy this omission, among others, with a formal recommendation to the Ontario government that sexual orientation should be included in an amended code. No action was taken for four years. Then the issue was debated in the provincial Legislature with passion for some days in the fall of 1981. An opposition amendment to include sexual orientation was defeated in committee.

"When Ontario proclaimed its new code in force on June 15, 1982, sexual orientation was not included among its 13 enumerated prohibited grounds. In Ontario, it is obvious that without specific mention, sexual orientation is not a legal ground for complaints under human rights legislation."

I believe this specific amendment is needed. We cannot assume that any generalized clause or mention under the Human Rights Code is sufficient to protect these people.

I guess the next question we have to ask ourselves is at the very crux of this debate. Are homosexual citizens of this province, people whose sexual orientation varies from that which is considered to be in the mainstream, being discriminated against in our society? Clearly, this is the case.

I wonder how many members of this assembly have had somebody come to them in their constituency offices, or telephone them, in their years of service in this chamber, complaining about the denial of accommodation, the denial or loss of employment or the denial of government services? We know it happens. It is happening.

Recently, I called a friend of mine in Chicago, a rather noted Bible scholar, because I wanted his advice in preparing for this debate, and he told me it was a widespread and unhappy phenomenon in the United States that people suffering from the dreaded disease of acquired immune deficiency syndrome were running into problems in obtaining proper and adequate hospital service in various parts of the US.

16:20

This clergyman told me a heart-rending story of a young gay man in Philadelphia who was diagnosed with AIDS and told by his doctor that he likely had no more than two or three weeks to live. He went to the hospital and was provided with service, but this young man's partner in life was refused the right to visit him because he was not a member of the immediate family. The family in this case completely dissociated themselves from their son, refused to visit him and refused to acknowledge him as their son. This young man died alone in his hospital room with only his clergyman to offer him comfort.

I thank the Lord, in whom I believe so strongly, that I have not heard a similar story in our province; but I do believe that under the Human Rights Code, unamended, it could happen. I also believe it is not in the spirit of tolerance and not in keeping with the spirit of good government that we would allow such discrimination to take place.

Two weeks ago, representatives o