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

October 14, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES DROITS CIVILS

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES DROITS CIVILS

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

PROGRAMME D'ALPHABÉTISATION

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ONTARIO ECONOMY

TEACHER'S DISPUTE

TWINNING OF ST CATHARINES AND PORT OF SPAIN

VIOLENCE

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE

HEALTH SERVICES

VISITOR

DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

VIOLENCE

PAROLE SYSTEM

ONTARIO ECONOMY

HEALTH SERVICES

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

HEALTH SERVICES

CHILD CARE

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

LANDFILL

LANDFILL

CASINO GAMBLING

GAMBLING

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

LONG-TERM CARE

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE PLAN D'INVESTISSEMENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES DROITS CIVILS

Mr Harnick moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 56,

An Act to protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario / Projet de loi 56, Loi visant à protéger les droits civils des personnes en Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I would like to begin debate on this legislation by highlighting the reasons for its introduction. I was prompted to table this bill as a positive attempt to fight the drastic increase in the spread of hate propaganda in Ontario. The increase of intolerance and racially motivated crime demanded action.

I note that in dealing with this very subject the Attorney General of Ontario has said that the Criminal Code as it is written now is not adequate to allow us to deal with some of the issues, and there have been ongoing concerns on a federal-provincial-territorial basis about how to strengthen these provisions.

We, as provincial legislators, have no jurisdiction to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, but what I have done is tried to create

an act that will provide a civil remedy to those persons aggrieved as a result of conduct or communications promoting hatred or promoting the superiority or inferiority of one race or class of persons over another. I feel personally very, very strongly about empowering people to be able to deal with these situations without the necessity of having to wait for an Attorney General to intervene. The Attorney General has indicated how difficult it is to intervene, and accordingly I am creating a civil right for those aggrieved to seek damages in the courts.

In the past year we have been witness to cross-burnings, organized hate rallies, racially motivated attacks, hate hotlines and the targeting of young students as potential recruits by white supremacist organizations. This bill deals with recognizing that that conduct is wrong and that that conduct needs to be stopped, and people who are aggrieved as a result of that conduct have to have a remedy. Bill 56, my act to protect the civil rights of persons in Ontario, does that.

There are undoubtedly, in dealing with issues such as these, difficulties in creating such

an act, but I believe that this particular piece of legislation is a very good start. I believe that everyone has basic human rights, and one of those rights is the ability to live free from persecution and fear. Individuals who are members of minority groups are made to fear for the protection of their person and their property because of the increased violence that accompanies the spread of hate material. As legislators, we must act to guarantee the protection of members of our society from this fear.

Any legislation of this sort must be worded and enacted with particular care. It is a delicate balancing act that must be taken in order to continue to guarantee the right of free speech while prohibiting the spread of hatred. I believe that this legislation achieves that balance.

Of very particular note, I am trying to deal here with not just communication but actual conduct. I tell you, Mr Speaker, that the late Walter Tarnopolsky, a justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal and a renowned individual in dealing with civil rights, looked at these issues in a way that targeted conduct. It didn't just deal with communications, and what I am trying to do with this piece of legislation is to target conduct. That is the type of legislation that I believe we need in Ontario to protect people's civil rights. If they are aggrieved by someone's conduct that is racially motivated, this act permits a civil remedy to sue for damages.

Section 2(

b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression as fundamental freedoms, but as a free and democratic society we must draw the line at allowing people to be attacked by hatred.

Again, I urge you, as members of the Legislature, to look at this bill as a start in providing aggrieved individuals with an opportunity to sue when conduct damages them; not just communications but conduct.

We don't have to look very far to see the kind of conduct I'm referring to. When high schools, and principals of high schools, are targeted as individuals by white supremacist groups to spread the message to enlarge those organizations and recruit, we have conduct that I believe is worthy of people being sued and prosecuted. Under the Criminal Code, as the Attorney General notes, it's very difficult to do that. Under my legislation, this can be done.

I believe that we have an opportunity, with this piece of legislation, to in fact protect the civil rights of all the people who live in the province of Ontario. This legislation will not limit vigorous debate or fair comment, but it will draw the line at allowing people to be attacked by hatred and contempt. Provincially, we can enact legislation that will provide additional means to further fight against racism. This legislation allows individuals who have been the victims of hatred to go before the courts and sue in order to protect their basic human rights.

We have developing in our society certain things that are going on that have to be of major concern to every decent, law-abiding citizen in this province. We have situations where people are attacked because of their race or religion. We have situations where we have groups such as the Heritage Front and the Church of the Creator. It's interesting that for the Church of the Creator group, a gentleman by the name of George Burdie sums up the aims of the Church of the Creator as follows: "This time we will chase every dirty human rat down to the end of the earth and beat him to death if he is a traitor.

This time, my white racial comrades, we shall conquer the world for our people. As Adolf Hitler once said, 'Today Germany; tomorrow the world.' White power."

We have people in our society who are going out and intimidating and causing damage to individuals because of their race, creed, background, sexual orientation, and when we have comments like this being made in a public sense, not in a private sense -- and when I'm talking about communication, I'm talking about public communication -- we as a society must deal with it.

I believe that the piece of legislation I have brought forward at least goes in some direction with dealing with that kind of conduct. That is why, very briefly, I have brought forward Bill 56,

An Act to protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario. I have very much appreciated the support that many members of this Legislature have given me in bringing this piece of legislation forward. I know there are technical problems with it. I ask people to use their goodwill in viewing this piece of legislation. Help me correct it, keep it alive, and hopefully this can become the law in the province of Ontario.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I certainly agree with Mr Harnick that activities which promote hatred run contrary to the values of equity and inclusion, values that we as a democratic society stand for. The German writer Goethe observed some time ago that national hatred is something peculiar and most violent where there is the lowest degree of culture.

Hate activities affect us all, whether it's a cross burning in Hyde Park near my riding in London, the desecration of a synagogue in Toronto, a telephone recording of hate messages available to the public throughout Ontario, a public speech by the Heritage Front, beatings of gay people and racial minorities, or the extreme denigration of women in certain media. For those people targeted by hate, the impact can be devastating. The sad fact is that hate activities do exist in various forms in Ontario and I support our government in its firm commitment to combat the promotion of hatred in Ontario.

What's more difficult to agree on is just how far we can go in regulating hate activities and achieving the kind of balance that Mr Harnick speaks to between outlawing hate propaganda, while at the same time protecting freedom of expression, which we value so dearly in Canadian society. In curbing hatred, we must be careful not to place too great a limitation on the individual's right to free expression, one of the cornerstones of our democratic society. Some people may feel that unrelated activities are being censored under the guise of controlling hate activities.

Finally and most frightening, regulating hate activity may actually serve to afford a platform to those who propagate hatred and may choose to challenge this kind of legislation. Our challenge has to be to find that very delicate balance between democratic rights and freedoms and the very real need to ensure that Ontario remains a society where equity, inclusion and harmony can flourish. The curbing of hate activities can be accomplished by legislation, but it can also be accomplished by educational programs and social policies.

Mr Harnick has presented us today with a proposal for legislating against hate activities, and I'd like to acknowledge his efforts and commend him in dealing with an issue that concerns us all. In spirit and intent, this bill touches the heart of the matter, but there are a number of points which will need to be addressed if this bill is to withstand court challenges.

Should our government opt to take this legislative route, it would only be after full examination in committee and listening to the views of the various interested parties. Let me say that our government could be prepared to support this bill if major changes were made to bring it within the bounds of constitutionality.

I stress that this support could only be given if the following fundamental revisions were made.

First of all, the criminal offence provision would probably have to be removed since it is ultra vires and infringes on the federal criminal law jurisdiction. As a result, it is more than likely, in our opinion, to be held to be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, one might well ask whether legislation can limit the content of private conversations. To do so would probably conflict with the freedom of expression enshrined in clause 2(

b) of the Charter of Rights. At best, legislation may limit the content of public speech, but this issue certainly requires more study and we need to understand more exactly what the line is between propagating hatred and making a political statement.

Thirdly, the bill should also cover a more limited number of grounds. For example, Mr Harnick's bill covers grounds such as family status, which is included in the Human Rights Code but not included under

section 15 of the Charter of Rights or in other parts of the charter. In order to justify such a restraint on public expression under

section 1 of the charter, I suggest a more limited number of grounds would have to be covered. While grounds such as race and religion are clearly meritorious in deserving protection against hate activity, it would be more difficult to give justification to allowing protection to grounds such as family status.

To give a brief example, in the recent federal Conservative leadership race, a local federal member in London, the riding of London-Middlesex, Terry Clifford, said that he would be supporting Jean Charest for the leadership of the Tory party because he was a family man. This immediately led to some indignation and concern on the part of Kim Campbell and those supporting her because she was, as it were, a single mother.

Now I put it to you, Mr Speaker, if indeed we're legislating against the advocacy of superiority or the inferiority of a group based on family status, could it not be argued that this would attract the very sanctions that Mr Harnick has included in his bill?

Lastly, a more specific definition is needed in order to prevent activities from occurring which assert the superiority or inferiority of a particular group of people. There are already Supreme Court decisions -- Keegstra and Taylor come immediately to mind -- which require very specific

definitions so that we don't unduly interfere with freedom of speech and intervene in the narrowest possible way.

Given the breadth of these kinds of concerns, our government would like to open up the issue further to public discussion. We're certainly promoting a free vote on the government's side, and it may be very valuable to have this matter go to committee.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): First, I would like to commend the member for Willowdale for bringing this forward. I think it is quite appropriate that we debate this and hear the views of all sides. I also want to commend the member for London South because, from what I'm hearing, he's supporting this bill. It's unfortunate, though, that he moved into some rather partisan bashing about the Conservatives and their views, because one of the things I want to commend my colleague from Willowdale for in bringing this about is that he seemed to have gotten the essence of taking the partisan out and looking at human issues. I want to do that and commend him very much.

The reason he has brought this forward is the obvious fact of the failure of other legislation, federal or provincial, to protect the rights of others with regard to hate literature. But whether or not legislation is adequate, I would feel a failure to enforce the violation may be one of the main issues. As soon as we find that we have legislation and we fail to enforce it, what happens is that we make new legislation. It seems to me I'm going to be in a sea of lawyers who will talk about this legislation, and I hope somehow the real issue will not be lost.

We're hopeful, though, that the government will finally take the kind of serious action that is needed now. We know how a private member's bill can actually stay on the books and gradually die away. I think it's extremely important when we are talking about human lives and the kinds of things that happen to them through these kinds of situations that exist now.

However, we know that protecting one's human rights is always a delicate balancing act, and I think Mr Winninger spoke a little about that. With regard to protecting the rights of a group or the particular rights of an individual, of course we at times impinge on others by doing so. This brings to light, as a matter of fact, that this Parliament sometimes fails to debate, in the case of Show Boat, for instance; people are expressing their concerns, that it hits to the heart of them, and it is a sort of racial overtone that puts them in a poor light.

That's the feeling of the human being who is saying that, and the other side feeling that it is entertainment, that the thing is not historic anyhow. That has to be taken into consideration seriously. Leaving it to the people out there brings about confrontation. We need proper legislation and a proper venue in order to deal with that.

According to this bill, persons have "the right to bring an action, without proof of damage, against any person or association of persons whose conduct or communication promotes hatred." As we read through that, it's very, very difficult to find out what is hate, and as I talk about Show Boat, it does promote hate towards us. Of course, if we have some proper investigation, it may show that.

My daughter was going to the University of Western Ontario in London at the time this issue came up. We don't have time to bring that up, but we know the issue about the professor who advocated superiority with regard to some sort of race. This professor continued to get his pay and demonstrate his racist attitude and be protected by academic privilege and expression, and it's left there for the suffering of those who were hurt on this, whether it was regarded as hate propaganda or not. But those individuals continue to struggle to prove themselves, in one way or the other, superior to the other. We need legislation emphatically to look at these things.

In this legislation, I'm concerned about the power to bring an injunction on an individual or an organization, and that is my concern, especially in the case where there is an area in respect to the accused. I'm not a lawyer and I will not speak as a legal mind, but I am concerned that an individual who has a concern about a company, malice somehow, will bring an injunction against an organization and shut that organization down because they have the power to do so, and in the long run find out that the individual was in fact in error. Who bears that cost? Does the company or the organization bear that cost, and the individual can go along on his or her way?

I would like to see, as we support this and it goes into second reading, that some of those concerns are addressed. Many of the lawyers we have here can put their legal minds to it. The very high-paid lawyers we have in the Attorney General's office can assist us in making sure that the group is protected as much as the individual is protected and that an injunction would not shut someone down.

Someone said to me the other day, when I was at the Employment Equity Commission, am I speaking and protecting companies and employers? I said: "Yes, that's what we're here for. We're here to protect the group as well as to protect the individual." That is what legislation is all about, to be fair to all, and this legislation should make sure it protects those people, whether in the event of a person or persons who are accused.

This is an important bill. The Liberal Party seeks to bring the right of all persons, and it is necessary to resort to such a drastic step as legislation of this kind. Is it that necessary? We don't know. Maybe it is. We talk about the fact that education will bring this about, and if we educate people, they will not project hatred. Somehow, yes, that will help, but not necessarily so.

We need legislation that is strong, whether it's in the Human Rights Code, the Charter of Rights -- of course we are protected there -- or whether we need new legislation. New legislation never surprises me, that we're going to do the thing and say, well, this is it. It will then bring the issue right up front and resolve the problem. Legislation sometimes, to me, makes the pockets of the lawyers a little bit fatter and the individuals it should serve are not properly served.

Let us for this time, as a private member's bill, make sure that this happens.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): First of all, I would like to give very special commendation to the member for Willowdale, Mr Harnick, for the leadership he's bringing to this issue. Ever since he became a member of our caucus he has been a real spokesperson for human rights and for the rights of all people and has become a conscience within our party for the things that are right and good. I commend him for his efforts in this regard.

What he's really bringing to the Legislature is an opportunity for us as legislators to deal with a much larger issue in a non-partisan way. Let's get rid of the party lines and the biases we have, this baggage we carry into the Legislature because of our different parties, and for once deal with an issue that is really touching all human beings and all residents of our province so that every person can truly have a sense of freedom and equality and a quality of life that might otherwise be taken away because of the hurt and the damage and the harm that others would bring to them.

It's a sensitivity to the needs of people, if you realize that in society there are people who are being abused and hurt and that the arrows of hate go to the very depth and heart of their being when others come along and malign them. It takes away their sense of freedom when others are able to inflict that sense of anger and hurt on them.

Why can't we as a society come together in the spirit of goodwill that allows all of us to sit around a table, from all parties, which could be in the form of a committee hearing that would look at this bill, and try to work through the problems it brings with it, to have a sense of dedication to purpose and principle that overrides the exact wording, but through that process of thinking it through together, comes up with a bill that truly begins to touch the need we're talking about today?

I appreciate, first of all, that Mr Harnick has brought this forward. The second thing is that I appreciate that he has opened up the willingness to study it further. By putting this stake in the ground, he has begun a process of debate and discussion that will allow us as legislators to move it forward. He has also expressed a willingness to be open for amendment, as long as it moves towards the target of ending the problems of hate.

In my recent publication on human rights, and I'm the critic for human rights for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, we delineated the chronology of racist activities in 1993. You couldn't believe, until you started taking item by item from the beginning of January -- and we recall them through into August -- the nasty, horrible things that are going on in our society. Unless you are the target of the abuse of these people, unless you're the target of the Heritage Front or the Ku Klux Klan or Equal Rights for Whites or any of these other racist, supremacist groups, you don't appreciate how hurtful and damaging these groups can be to other people's freedom and rights.

Therefore, what we're trying to do through Bill 56 is to address those grievances in such a way that if other parts of the law are not addressing it -- if the Human Rights Commission is not addressing it, if the Attorney General is not addressing it, if through our federal laws it's not being redressed -- then we have recourse through another bill, Bill 56, that will allow individuals to take forward their concerns in the courts of law in the province of Ontario.

The sensitivity of the member for London Centre, I think it was, who says, "Okay, there are issues" -- I can see us wanting to work them through, and then out of that developing a consensus. The consensus is based, first of all, on recognition of the problem that we continue to have in our society, and it's there. As long as it's there, we have the responsibility as legislators to fight to do our very best to eradicate it.

We do it through education; we do it through example; we do it through the popular media; we do it through every device we can in order to encourage people to be responsible in all their actions to their fellow human beings. Then, when all those have failed, and there are still going to be the examples of the recent situation that the League For Human Rights has brought forward, then we're going to call upon the courts to act on it.

I wish I had more time. We are very, very tight for time in this bill. But there is an exciting judgement that was made by a federal judge that has closed down the Heritage Front hotline for the time being, and then they can open up again. What I'd like to see is a chance for those who are grieved by such acts as the Heritage Front to take it to court themselves and do something about it. Mr Harnick's bill is a good step in that direction.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I too want to commend Mr Harnick for bringing this bill. It's one of the reasons I sought election: to be a part of change, a change that's so desperately needed in this particular area.

Hate literature and hate activities cripple people in ways that some of us still don't understand, in ways in which children are prevented from becoming all they can according to their potential, all that they should be, because they have been made to believe they are somehow inferior or somehow less than others.

It threatens the security of people and property, and it creates a kind of climate of fear and intolerance. So many times we have had buildings defaced. People have been threatened. There are children who have come into schools and said, "You know, I'm being beaten on the way to school and so-and-so is calling me names," and not only another child but also that child's parents or that child's older siblings are hurting them or threatening to hurt them, all because of this kind of hatred.

It undermines self-esteem, and it is done in a way that in fact makes people feel their very souls are less than others'. It is done in a way that makes people embarrassed to say who they are and what they are. It is done in a way that actually promotes some people who are less visible as belonging to particular groups to change their names, to "pass," as we say in our community, because they feel that they will be limited. There are many ways in which it pressures individuals to abandon who they really are. It creates frustration and outrage and it disrupts social harmony.

Sometimes it is done overtly: It is done with signs and it is done with name calling and it is done with nasty sayings and it is done with threats. Sometimes it is done covertly: It is done with plays, it is done with musicals, it is done with evenings of entertainment where people seek to say, "It's just good fun," and yet it has the same effect.

So of course I commend Mr Harnick for bringing this bill to the House. I want to tell him that I feel he has done something really great, something that is very necessary. As it stands now, we must wait until police bring actions or cases to the Attorney General's attention, and there very often are many cases where we have found for some reason or other this is not done. Sometimes we believe there are reasons for this. Maybe they feel the case is not important enough.

I often wonder, who best to assess the importance of the case if not the people who feel the hurt and suffer the pain and wipe children's tears and somehow bolster themselves for yet another day holding their head up high in spite of those actions?

So I commend Mr Harnick and I say that it is time we had the right to bring actions ourselves. It is time that the victims had the right to say: "I've had enough. I want this investigated. I want some retribution." I don't suggest for a moment that bringing this to the courts is the only way to do this. I know there are other things which must be done.

I know that we must continue education and we must continue to strategize and to promote the acceptance of one another, but I also know that once something is law, people begin to behave in a way that is in concert with those laws, and once they behave that way, they began to speak in support of their actions. So I will be supporting this legislation.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I too am going to rise in support of the bill sponsored and put forward by the member for Willowdale. I thank him for doing this. I think it's an important initiative.

I was recently elected in a by-election some few months ago and it wasn't very long before situations like this presented themselves as real concerns in my riding. Over the summer, I'm sure many of the members in this House will remember that a number of members of the Tamil community were beaten, and in one case killed, in what I think were seen to be, and rightly so, hate-motivated attacks.

Shortly thereafter, there was a march in my riding organized by the Tamil Ealam Society in which we marched through the riding and in the community as a form of solidarity, to use a sometimes maligned word, of coming together and saying, "This is wrong." I was glad to be there representing I guess the power structure to some degree. It was unfortunate. I'd hoped to see more members of this House there, but I think we can do what we can, and this bill is one step in doing that.

I think what we're really talking about is that core evil emotion of hatred directed at individuals for reasons entirely unrelated to their merit as human beings. In my riding, it's not just the Tamil community; for example, it's the gay and lesbian community. Gay-bashing is a real problem in the riding of St George-St David. There are attempts to deal with that, but there is that hatred directed at people for reasons that I don't quite fathom sometimes, that often arise at times when the economy is difficult and people tend to blame people who are different. We as a society have to work to eliminate that sense of separation between peoples as much as we can.

I think, for example, of the hurt and pain the Jewish community must feel every time a synagogue or a cemetery is defaced, every time they have to see the Heritage Front in the newspaper. The member for St Andrew-St Patrick and the member for Scarborough North both spoke eloquently about how sometimes even what others think is innocent, like Show Boat, can be a painful experience because of the message it conveys. We have to think about how this has to be part of a broader effort, about other things that we can do.

One of the things that concerns me greatly is the question of activities by organizations like the Heritage Front and RaHoWa, which is an ugly acronym for racial holy war, and their activities in our schools. That very much concerns me. In talking to police officers and others who have some sense of what's happening, they are very much concerned about the recruitment activities by these organizations in our schools, by the encouragement of hatred that these organizations are in the process of fomenting. I think we have to move towards getting rid of these organizations having access to our schools.

We've got to keep them off the property, keep them away from our children. There is always that potential in schools for children to be very susceptible to those messages of disliking those who are different, even if it's sometimes as innocent as being the other school. I can remember, growing up, going to a separate school when I was a child, and we'd have to cross the street to pass by the public school; otherwise they'd be throwing rocks at us.

It was innocent for the children at the time, but it was symptomatic of something that we have to be concerned about, that these groups like the Heritage Front and RaHoWa can take advantage of.

I think the member for Willowdale's bill is part of moving towards solving that. It's not by any stretch of the imagination a whole answer, but he deserves credit for at least taking some of the first steps. I hope the government is listening. I'm hearing good things from the member for St Andrew-St Patrick and the member for London South, Mr Winninger, and I hope the Attorney General is listening to that message from all parties, because I think it's something we can build on.

That's not to say this is a perfect bill. It has some improvements. One issue, and it was raised by the member for Scarborough North, was the professor at Western, for example -- Rushton, I believe his name was -- and his silly notions. My concern would be that this bill could possibly make the university liable for some of what he said if there was a damage award. Maybe that's appropriate, maybe not, but I think we should have a discussion about that.

This should go out to committee to have that discussion, because obviously there's a balance to be struck between academic integrity and the ability of a group of people who feel put upon by the kinds of silly things Rushton was saying to have some kind of redress. We need to discuss that balance, about how far we go to make organizations liable for the actions of individuals within it.

One of the things that may be unintended and not quite a direct consequence of this but may be a fruitful one is what this will mean for pornography, for example. I think, for example, the Human Rights Commission is currently considering the application of two women about a corner store and how its carrying Playboy and magazines like that created an environment they felt uncomfortable in and therefore was a violation of the Human Rights Code. I could see a similar argument being made in the circumstances of this bill.

Again, maybe that's appropriate, maybe not, but I think it's important we have that discussion, and I thank the member for Willowdale for bringing forward a bill that at least allows us to take those first steps.

I am, like the member for London South, concerned about the offence section, because I think it could create, not so much because of the ultra vires issue but more because the balance needs to be struck, a criminal liability indirectly. "Promoting hatred" is an imprecise term, and because of the vicarious liability of a corporation, you could be criminally liable for an action of someone you're not entirely responsible for, and that is of some concern to me.

The Deputy Speaker: Time, thank you.

Mr Murphy: I very much support the principle of the bill and I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I wish to join in the debate this morning on private member's Bill 56,

An Act to protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario, and I wish to congratulate my colleague the PC Attorney General critic and member for Willowdale for bringing in this timely private member's legislation which will offer greater protection of the civil rights of all Ontario citizens.

As you know, this is also in response to the alarming increase in racial and religious hatred that we are seeing cropping up in our society today. My colleague's tireless efforts to fight discrimination in his community and throughout Ontario remind us of our common responsibility as legislators to be vigilant to stamp out hatred towards any group or individual in our society.

Incidents of racially inspired hatred, especially anti-Semitism, have been occurring here in Ontario with greater regularity while politicians have been unacceptably slow in responding to these. For example, last December a swastika was painted on the side of the Legislature. It was only removed eight full days later. In May a group of skinheads broke into a store in Kitchener and unmercifully beat the Jewish merchant who was there.

The one who has been encouraging and promoting anti-Semitism, the most insidious form of racism, perhaps the most, Ernst Zundel, has attained far too much notoriety in the media in this province, while we are informed, even in this Legislature, that not enough evidence exists to put a stop to his promotion of public hatred. I'm even led to believe now that he has secured a cable television channel in order to spread this form of hatred.

As I stated in this Legislature on June 3, the government's fear is that we won't win the case in court against this purveyor of hatred and that our laws against racially inspired hatred aren't strong enough. We must strengthen our commitment, therefore, and we must strengthen our resolve. For those of us in public life, regardless of our partisanship, to do nothing is in fact to condone anti-Semitism and other forms of racial and religious intolerance with our silence and with our inaction.

If it is not us, then who? If it is not now that we do this, then I don't know when, because now is the time to send a very clear message that neither anti-Semitism nor public hatred of any kind will be tolerated, not in this province, not in this country, not anywhere.

The experience of victimization is as ugly as it is cruel. As someone who has promoted the rights of victims of crime for more than eight years in this Legislature, I believe that the greatest right anyone has in this province is the right not to be victimized.

The provisions of my colleague's Bill 56 having to do with hatred and the promotion of the superiority of one group over another also provide an important way to address hatred against women, as depicted in violent pornography such as triple X and slasher films as well as the serial killer cards. These are all expressions of male superiority over women, who are treated as objects for the gratification of men.

There is a strong causal link between pornography and violence against women. On April 26, 1989, I challenged the then Liberal minister for women's issues on his statement to the contrary. In response, I guess on reflection, that minister was obliged to admit that in fact a causal link does exist.

On April 11, 1991, I took the NDP Consumer and Commercial Relations minister to task in this House for her government's refusal to press charges against explicit sex video stores. During a number of police raids approved by the Solicitor General on such stores, video tapes showing sexual violence and bondage of women were seized. The police were undermined by the NDP Attorney General, who withdrew the direction to the crown attorneys to proceed with prosecutions.

Women in Ontario felt betrayed by the minister and her government, who refused to take a stand against sexually degrading and violent pornography which emphasizes and glorifies the superiority of men and dehumanizes and degrades women. As Robert Payne, the then Ontario Film Review Board chairman said, "Ultimately, the problem is a political one that needs to be addressed."

Since this NDP government has been unwilling to address it, opposition politicians and citizens' groups have taken the lead against violent pornography. On May 7, 1992, I raised the alarming situation of the marketing of serial killer cards in Canada, which featured serial killers and mass murderers. In addition to illustrating psychopathic killers, the cards also described the minute details of their perverse crimes.

Debbie Mahaffy, who heads Canadians Against Violence, led a massive campaign against the serial killer cards. Today we have learned that a new series of these cards will be put in Ontario stores this January.

The time to act is now. But the problem with fighting sexually violent pornography and the killer cards is that the law until now has been preoccupied in defining the causal link between violent pornography and violent acts themselves. However, under the provisions of my colleague's private member's Bill 56, individuals and groups can be empowered to take action against the purveyors and profiteers of violent pornography, since they are expressions of hatred against women and promote male superiority.

This bill can provide better legal means by which women may defend themselves against the degrading victimization of violent pornography and serial killer cards that desensitize men, dehumanize women and promote the violent treatment of women.

I support unreservedly my colleague's private member's Bill 56, the Civil Rights Protection Act, and I would urge all members of this House to do the same.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Bill 56 raises many issues of importance that have not been properly addressed by today's society. The bill is aimed at curtailing hate activity in Ontario, activity which attempts to promote hatred against groups and members of groups on account of their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, age or family status.

I am certain that we all share this goal and want to do everything we can to achieve it. Legislation may help to achieve these goals and it's something that I think we should consider very seriously. However, legislation works best only when the public is educated with respect to what it means and why it is needed.

In order for Mr Harnick's bill to be effective, a consensus will need to be developed which will enable us to be clear on the limits of tolerance with respect to hate activity and to educate the broader public on what those limits are. I think that listening to the public on this issue would be a good first step towards developing such a consensus and for that reason I would like to see Mr Harnick's bill get a public hearing.

I also think it will be important to develop educational programs and social policies that will sensitize the public to these issues and that will increase public awareness of what hate activity is, the various forms it takes and the necessity of nipping these activities in the bud.

There is growing concern that hate activities are increasing on a global level. I think we all agree that we should do everything we can to counter that trend here in Ontario. I think that education on anti-racism, anti-violence, gender equality, religious differences and sexual orientation needs to be taken seriously and given greater priority. Effective courses on these issues need to be developed and taught at all levels.

I think we should work with community groups to deal with hate-related issues as they arise and to develop programs to combat hate and to provide a forum for public complaints. We need to create a structure for dialogue within and among communities most vulnerable to hate activity. To demonstrate our commitment, I'd like to see that dialogue include representatives of the government.

The subject of hate activities is due to come before the cabinet round table in November, and a number of the concerns raised today will receive more detailed consultation there. In the meantime, it is vital that we continue to move forward with this very important subject. To do this, I suggest holding public hearings to determine whether the kind of bill proposed by Mr Harnick is appropriate and, if so, what changes are required to make it viable.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): In Ontario, in Metro Toronto, we are fortunate that people from many countries and many walks of life have come here for over a century and have worked hard together to develop our communities, our lifestyle and our method of government. This diversity has contributed immensely to the richness of our society from a cultural perspective but also in developing our economy and a better way of life in this province.

We need to ensure that there is fairness, equity and tolerance in our society so that people may contribute according to their ability. We need to fight against discrimination, bias and any restriction against any person. If a member of our society suffers discrimination, then not only that individual but our society as a whole loses.

I've had some experience in this regard, being the chair of the mayor's committee on multiculturalism and race relations in East York for 11 years, and I have in my possession a letter from the mayor of the city of Toronto that I think expresses some of the concerns that I have experienced through that period of time.

She expresses concerns about the increase in organized hate group activities of white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. They've been on the rise for the last few years. These groups are exploiting in particular the recession and high unemployment, and they are aggressively recruiting the young people, going right into our schools and recruiting and poisoning the minds of the young people in our schools.

I know that in the east end of Metropolitan Toronto there have been a number of incidents of hate literature being circulated, being tucked in the windshields of cars, being distributed through apartment buildings, particularly buildings where there'd be people from many different countries, many different colours. We have attempted, through the police and through the various different government authorities, to have this issue addressed, but the laws don't seem to be satisfactory, don't seem to have teeth.

So I commend the member for Willowdale. I think it's time that legislation was brought forward to deal with groups like the Heritage Front that, frankly, we've had to deal with in the east end of Metropolitan Toronto, both through their hate literature and paper and through their telephone messages that crop up from time to time and that, unfortunately, people are subjected to.

My congratulations to the member for Willowdale, and I certainly hope that this legislation carries through.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Willowdale, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Harnick: I very much appreciate the sincere goodwill of all those who spoke on this bill this morning and I very much appreciate their commitment to see this bill continue and go forward and become law.

There's no question that someone who becomes embarrassed because of who they are, or is intimidated as a result of who they are, or feels threatened because of who they are, or feels pressure because of who they are, or frustration because of who they are is a person who is suffering damages, and people who suffer damages as a result of other people's conduct and behaviour deserve compensation. That is what this bill provides. At the same time, it provides a deterrent effect against those individuals whose conduct is reprehensible.

I want to do this now and I want to do this together with my colleagues in this Legislature. I am delighted at the opportunity to take this to a standing committee. I am delighted to meet with the cabinet round table on race relations. I am anxious to work with those in the Attorney General's department to make this bill a workable bill. I am anxious to meet with those who are far more learned in the law than I am to create to a piece of legislation that will work. I am anxious to sit down and work with the people from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and my good friend Mr Borovoy.

I believe we can make this a workable piece of legislation that will benefit all the people in the province of Ontario.

Let me again express my sincere thanks to all members who have supported this piece of legislation and to those who spoke so eloquently today.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for the first debate has ended.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Klopp moved private member's notice of motion number 26:

That, in the opinion of this House, since the federal government's announcement to sell surplus Pickering airport lands will lead to major changes in ownership and possible changes in land use, and

Since there is a stated federal government commitment to the preservation of agricultural lands, and

Since there could be adverse impacts on several provincial initiatives ongoing in the immediate area, such as the Duffin-Rouge agricultural preserve, the Rouge park, the Seaton community and the Oak Ridges moraine, and

Since there has been no meaningful consultation by the federal government on the issues of a strategy for the airport lands, the disposal of any surplus lands and any related infrastructure needs to service the area,

Therefore, this House calls on the federal government to stop this premature plan to dispose of surplus federal lands in the Pickering area until a comprehensive long-term strategy is developed for the whole federal holding, following extensive consultation with on-site tenants, owners of surrounding lands, other interested parties, local and regional governments and the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): It is with privilege that I rise here today to talk on this issue. As a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and in my past number of years, I've come to a great appreciation that we need to preserve our land. As a party we've spoken many, many times over the last 20 years on the fact that we've seen our lands paved over in this province, and of course people said, "We've got lots of land; we don't need to worry about it." I think we do need to worry about it. So I am pleased to introduce this resolution calling on the federal government to stop the sale of the surplus Pickering airport lands.

This hasty and ill-considered action by Ottawa completely ignores the plans and wishes of local residents, community groups, local government and the province of Ontario. It's hard to imagine a more thoughtless and shortsighted approach than to sell some 5,000 acres of prime agricultural land, which is now used chiefly for food production, and to sell it with little or no consideration for the long-term implications of such an action.

Not only that, but it's quite possible that the federal government could sell the land in parcels too small for farming use but big enough to pave over and build residential subdivisions on, with little or no thought for the provision of services, access roads or the impacts on neighbouring properties.

As my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Elmer Buchanan, said in the news media last week, "The public wants Ontario prime food land protected for the long term." In consultations we have undertaken, and in my own experience, people have understood the vital importance of preserving our best food-producing land now, before it's developed for other uses. As the honourable members know, this government shares the view that prime food land should be maintained for food production. This government knows and appreciates the real value of good farm land.

What Ottawa appears to be doing in this case is creating a short-term gain that will ensure long-term pain. The lure of earning a few million dollars by selling this land is, I agree, hard to resist, especially for governments, and the federal government needs dollars. But it must be resisted, because once this land is sold and this farm land is sold, it's gone for ever, and in the long term the people of Ontario and Canada will be poorer for it.

Such a sale doesn't make any sense to me and is unwise. It doesn't make sense because it's at odds with the federal government's own commitment to the preservation of agricultural lands as expressed in the federal-provincial green plan agreement and other accords on soil and farm land preservation.

It also doesn't make sense because it is at odds with provincial governments' previous actions in the area. Here I'm referring to the setting aside of lands for the Rouge Valley Park and the Duffin-Rouge agricultural preserve, both of which lie just south of the federal airport land.

The federal action is unwise because once such lands are sold, they may be lost for ever to food production. They can be paved over, built upon -- in short, urbanized -- and never again used for farming or providing green spaces that city-bound people appreciate and value.

But I think what is one of the worst aspects of this situation is the surprise factor, the utter failure of the federal government to properly listen to those who live on the lands as to what effect such sales would have on them. What's at risk here are the people's livelihoods, their homes and their sense of belonging to a community. I ask, what will happen to the scores of our citizens displaced by the sale of this land?

Land use planning is a provincial and municipal responsibility. It is true that the federal government is exempt from provisions of our land use planning laws, but that in no way excuses Ottawa from acting in such a way as to threaten the province's land use plans.

In fact, as the senior government, Ottawa has a special responsibility, I believe, to act in harmony with the wishes of the provincial and local governments, unless, of course, there is some issue of national importance at stake. I'm sure we can all agree in this House that this is not the case here. What we have instead is a government acting in an expedient and autocratic manner without sufficient thought for the people living on the airport lands or for what the impact of the sale of these lands would be on adjacent communities and the environment.

We're not talking about asking to return to the status quo on this important issue; quite the opposite. We believe that if this land the federal government owns is not going to be used for an airport, another long-term solution should be found on this issue. On the other hand, if the federal property is to be used for an airport, I would doubt the final shape of an airport facility has yet been fully determined. Surely, therefore, now is not the time to sell what Ottawa considers surplus airport lands.

We don't need any more of this arbitrary, high-handed approach to problem-solving. Rather, let's sit down together and find a solution, a solution that suits the long-term needs of this vital area on the eastern doorstep of Metro Toronto. And if the airport lands are to be sold, it's important to remember that they are mostly class 1 and 2 prime agricultural lands. At the very least, then, let's make sure they are sold in parcels of sufficient size to be made into productive farms. Let's make sure the essential rural nature of these lands can be preserved.

I certainly hope the federal government can reverse its very unwise decision, a decision that flies in the face of common sense. We ask the federal government to sit down with us, with the affected municipalities and the community of interest, to plan the long-term future of the Pickering airport lands rather than pursue this wrongheaded policy any longer.

I ask that all members of this House join together to support this important resolution. It calls upon the federal government to cease its sales of the Pickering airport lands and instead develop a long-term strategy in consultation with all those affected, a plan that suits the needs and hopes of the Pickering community and the people who live there.

I have colleagues today who are directly affected. They are going to speak in support of this resolution and further put details of what has really gone on in that area over the last 10 years. There have been many communities of interest, and for sure we need to make a decision and do some long-term planning. But this decision was not done in consultation, and I think it would be unwise to move on this. We've seen the Pearson airport decision. I recognize the politics, but surely we need to not have this rammed through.

I really hope we can support this in a positive way in this House today to put pressure on the federal government so that we can have better planning.

I have had the privilege of driving through that area. In fact my father has memories of it. It's really sad to see the people in the limbo that has happened over the number of years there and we need to move, but we need to move in a far more open fashion, and that's the thrust of this resolution. I urge support.

I can think back not that long: well, 10 or 15 years ago; time flies now. But I remember just the west side of Toronto; many fields now are under pavement. We've had a bad history of allowing one area to go because we've got other lands and we'll worry about it in the next generation. So land gets changed and slowly but surely it gets paved. We have to stop that. This is what this resolution is about, is to start thinking now for the future. I urge everyone's support and I look forward to the debate today.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I appreciate the opportunity to address the motion. It's an area I'm quite familiar with. My constituency, as we say around here, is one of the Scarborough ridings. When I first ran for elected office, it was in 1969 for the school board and one of my platforms -- I looked at my old brochure -- was actually having an outdoor school for the Scarborough students in the Rouge area so that they could understand and study the Rouge. Actually, that came to pass, which I was fortunate to have played some small role in. So I think we should all, particularly those of us who may not be familiar with the area, recognize that the area is a bit of a treasure.

I bet I walk in the Rouge once a week, and I see many of the Rouge members here today. I know I've walked from the Markham town line down to the lake many times on each of the branches of the Rouge and it is quite an amazing piece of property. In fact, it probably was just about a year ago that I was out and saw a herd of 20 deer. I couldn't believe it. It was just north of the railroad tracks there. It was almost exactly a year ago, and nobody, I think, who lives outside of Metro Toronto would understand or appreciate that there could be a herd of 20 deer within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto.

But it's a bit of a magical place there and if you haven't had a chance to walk it, I'd suggest you take that opportunity.

The thing I've learned in politics is that many of the decisions we make around here are fairly short term. Governments come; governments go. Things that you fought to have part of the landscape in a legislative way change because another government comes along and believes it has a better idea. So I never get my expectations up too high about the permanent effect that we can have in politics.

There are a few exceptions and one only has to look around the world at some of the great cities to realize that either 100 years ago or 200 years ago or 2,000 years ago somebody made the decision to design and to plan an area in a certain way. Those decisions can be permanent, but if you make the wrong decision once, they're gone for ever. That's one of the reasons in politics you kind of chalk up some things that you are proud of and that you think will stay for a long while, and one of my proudest moments was the Rouge park.

Don't overestimate the role I played in it because I think it was the Save the Rouge group of volunteers and individuals who fought thousands and thousands of hours with thoughtful, rational, sometimes emotional but always important arguments. The reward belongs to them; they really did that. But those of us who are in government had to make part of that decision, so for me, it was one of the proudest moments and one of the moments that will live for ever, because it will stay there, the Rouge will stay for ever. As I say, legislation can change and all those things can change, but the park will stay for ever.

I think all of us in politics need to recognize the decisions that can't be changed. When you allow a piece of property to disappear, it's gone for ever. That's why the resolution has merit, and that's the resolution calling for a pause.

People can marshal their thinking and their energies to ask, what is the long-term goal here? Certainly that's the role the Rouge people played in the Rouge in Scarborough; it was to stop the decisions long enough for all of the evidence to be weighed and all of the information to become available. I think a rational decision then is made. I found the motion useful in that respect. It's not prescribing the end result; it's simply saying, "Let's pause and examine it." As I say, once the land is sold, it's sold for ever, so I think pausing and looking at the solution is important.

If I might put it in a bit of a broader context, governments at all levels right now are, for good reasons, preoccupied with finances, whether it be at the federal level, the provincial level or the municipal level. For those of us in opposition, and for those of you in government, one has to be particularly vigilant right now, because there is no doubt that in the interest of trying to make the finances look better there's a risk of some strange short-term decisions being made.

That may be what's happening at Pearson International Airport. It may be that in the interest of trying to make the books look better and finding creative ways to do capital infrastructure, what is conceptually an idea that has merit is badly executed.

It appears the federal government is obviously looking for money. I think there is support in the public for governments to look creatively at finding ways to reduce the debt, reduce the deficit, and to find other sources of funding. But within that general direction you find mistakes, and this may very well be a mistake.

I say to the Legislature, that's just another thing the people who are affected by the area will want to look at. Most people, I hope, are aware that the provincial government has sold -- probably the largest land sale in the history of the province was executed in March 1993. The province sold $450 million worth of provincial land. I'm not sure everyone's aware of that. I think the public is supportive of the sale of surplus lands, but I think all of us will want to be aware that the $450 million worth of land was sold by the provincial government six months ago, and among the sale of lands were some properties in this area.

I see that the Seaton golf course was sold, the Whitevale golf course was sold, 195 acres of open space in Pickering was sold, there were 1,355 acres of agricultural land in Whitby sold, and 1,300 acres in Markham east were sold to future development.

The reason I raise these things is that just as the federal government is embarking on trying to sell off what it would regard as assets, the provincial government's embarked on the same thing. I've been unable to determine where some of that land is because the people responsible feel they don't have the maps to do it for me. But I would urge the people who are affected by all of this area to take a look at the provincial government's land sales as well, just to make certain that we aren't here in the Legislature talking out of both sides of our mouth, selling off at least two golf courses in the area and maybe some other open space. I can't tell from the documents.

I come back to my central point, and that is that there are certain decisions we make that are irreversible here. I learned from experience that the Rouge is a classic example. Had we made the decision to proceed with the original plans in the Rouge, that would have been an irreversible decision. Luckily, through the efforts of the community, we didn't. As I said, it's one of my prouder moments in politics and one of the few kind of permanent things that I feel good about having accomplished.

I support what I think is a responsible motion. It's an opportunity for all of us to pause and to allow the community, in its broadest sense, to look at this area and for some reflection on this decision. When the final decision's made, whatever it is, to deal with the land, all of us, particularly those who live there and those who are most keenly interested in it, will feel there's been a full and complete airing, and whatever the final decision is, it will have been made on the basis of a sensible, long-term decision.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'm pleased to participate in this private member's resolution and to share in the concern we all have to preserve agricultural farm land and to continue to do all we can, from the provincial side of politics in Canada, to promote green areas and to see that they're developed and enhanced and protected. I share the concerns that are expressed by members of this House that anything we can do to maintain those lands and to expand them and develop them, we should do.

I give an awful lot of credit to all members of this House, and certainly to our federal members, in coming through and starting the whole Rouge Valley natural parkland. The community led the battle. Don't ever forget there were federal members involved, and I think Pauline Browes has to be attached to the success of that one. But it wasn't just one political party. She happened to be in power when we got the $10 million, but everyone has endorsed that to date and indeed it will be a reality. We have to continue to find ways of doing it, and I certainly want to be part of that long-term plan.

I have great concerns about the resolution that is before us. It reminds me that we've got so much government in this country that we're tripping over ourselves. Here the Ontario government's suing the federal government because of NAFTA. The provincial government comes along with a resolution like this and says: "Hey, the federal government is the one at fault for not doing something more on this. The federal government's rushing into something." Well, I'd just like to comment on a few of those points.

It isn't rushing into something; since 1987 what was going to happen with the surplus lands around Pickering has been widely known. A group known as PARC, the Pickering Airport Residents Committee, began and understood that there were surplus lands. A University of Guelph professor did a study on it, made recommendations that some of those lands be sold off, the surplus lands in particular, that some action be taken on it.

The federal government hasn't taken all the lands. They've taken 5,100 acres and are saying, let's do something with them, retaining another large

section of that land for possible future development of an airport. Who knows if that's going to happen? If that happens, it's going to be when Pearson gets rid of some of its special status and so on.

In the meantime, since 1987 there's been an understanding that something was going to be done with the surplus lands. It's not realistic to think it's just happening all at once.

If the federal government is to be criticized, it's because it's doing it right in the middle of an election and everybody's saying, "Oh my gosh, isn't that something." I'd say what they've done right from the beginning is have open statements of their plans for these lands; the fact that they've been announced for sale gives the province, instead of throwing stones at the federal government, an opportunity to say, "How can we get involved with it?"

Instead, we've had a press conference in which our Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister of Natural Resources come out and say, "We're going to do something about it." Well, what are they doing? They're planning to put a dump in some of the valuable lands around the Rouge Valley, but they come out here and say, "The province will act to preserve farms and green space on any lands sold, unless the federal government commits to a process, which allows us to develop the best use of these lands."

It's one thing to say that and it's another to have Bill 143, where they're going to stuff one of the world's largest dumps in Durham region and they're looking at one in Markham on the same kind of lands we're talking about here. What hypocrisy. A government and a government member come along who, on the one hand, say, let's do something about these, and on the other can destroy the lands with the Bill 143 dump plans --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I listened very attentively. You accused the government of being hypocritical and you also referred to the member. I won't accept that.

Mr Cousens: I'll withdraw any reference to the member being hypocritical. The government itself is an independent body and is hypocritical in the way it's going about this action, so that stands. But as far as an individual member is concerned, he has the right to do a stupid thing if he wants to.

The only stupid thing I'm talking about is the fact that on the one hand the government says it's going to put a dump on those lands, and on the other hand it's saying, let's try to find some way of retaining them free of charge.

Here's a suggestion. Take your logic a step further. Instead of expecting a free trip from the federal government all the time, how can we in the province and the community buy the lands? How can you as a government influence Hampton and Philip and the other people who are blaming everyone else for it, and say to the federal government, "We in Ontario are prepared to make a commitment, a commitment of money"? What instead we get is that Ontario comes out with its machine guns and shoots away at the federal government every chance it gets. What a country we have.

The country is just falling down. Every layer of government fights every other layer and there isn't any understanding. What we want to do is get Durham involved, get the municipalities involved, get the people involved and see if there are ways in which we can negotiate something out of this.

It's not something that's just happened today or yesterday; it's been going on since 1987, and everybody knows that there's been a strategy and a plan to sell off those surplus lands.

The crime against society is that every level of government has a way of blaming the other and that is what's wrong with Canada today. Canada is just destroying itself. We're ripping ourselves apart because of all the ways in which governments -- you know, it's almost lunacy when you think that after the next federal election you could see the fleur-de-lis flying from Stornoway. It could well be that the opposition party's going to come from Quebec, and what is Canada all about?

We are so busy at war with one another within a country that's so great and wonderful. We have one of the most beautiful lands in the world. You just have to look at the beautiful parklands and all the things we've got, and yet we're so busy at working against each other.

If we could find a way where the province could be sitting down with the federal government, we would find ways in which those lands could be purchased. But to expect a free trip at this point is beyond what anyone can hope for. If there's a shared reciprocal arrangement where different levels find ways of making it happen, that becomes the magic of success.

Instead, what we have is the kind of resolution today that I think leads us down the path to say they're doing something very quickly; it's premature; they haven't really looked at all the things. I'm saying they're not sold yet. There's still an opportunity to do something about it, and if we're smart as a country we will begin to do something about it.

But don't forget that this is the very government that comes forward and says, "Let's do something to protect these lands," that at the same time has shown callous disregard to the people of the province of Ontario by putting the dumps in York, Durham and Peel. The process they've followed is without a doubt the worst process I have ever seen any government do, and I despise them for it. I despise the way they have disregarded all previous laws.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I want to know about the airport.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Tell us about the airport. Tell us about Pearson.

Mr Cousens: Speak out when you have a chance, but as far as I'm concerned, I will never forgive the New Democratic Party and the way it has come about with its Bill 143 and tried to put dumps in the communities without looking at all options. What they have said is: "Hey, there's M6. There's one over in Pickering at Whitevale." Wherever they've chosen, they have still not said, "Let's look at other options," which could include rail haul, and opened up the whole environmental process to consider that. They've stripped away the rights of the communities and the people involved, to make it happen their way. This is a government that can stand up and say, "We want one thing, when it's our way."

It might well be that we can have those lands, which could continue to be used for farms or whatever. I don't know how many of them are being farmed. Maybe the honourable member who brings forward the motion could indicate, of the 5,000 acres, how many are being used for farming right now. But I would hope that even whoever buys them in the future could use them for farms and could use them for continuing work on that.

The fact of the matter is, here is a government which, when it's convenient to them, according to their religion, is able to say, "Hey, we're going to go and put a dump on the same land," or the same kind of land, about which they're trying to say on the other hand, "Oh, we want to protect these lands." It doesn't wash. The two don't mix. This is a government that can come along and do one thing one day and the opposite the next and forget that the two don't match. They can walk up and down both sides of the same street at the same time.

I find that the tremendous hypocrisy of government in Ontario, and it's the kind of thing that makes me say the intention behind the bill may be honourable: If we can do something to retain these lands, to keep them so that they're agricultural, to keep them so that they're parkland, to keep them so that people can continue to use them, let's do everything we possibly can to do it. To come along and take aim at the federal government and say it's all their fault without coming forward with some money from the province or from the communities to participate in solving the problem, just blaming someone else, isn't that the easy way of doing government?

Instead, let's do the responsible thing and stand up to the bar and see what we can do. I'm certainly prepared to help in any way possible to see that these lands stay open, can become part of our parkland, and to find some remedy to the problem. Don't just cast the blame on the federal government. Accept some of the responsibility at this level of government and at the municipal and regional governments so together we can sit around the table instead of fighting, as we're so good at. This is not the way Canada is going to be successful. This is exactly the way Canada keeps going further and further into the ground, because we don't know how to work together.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'm sure that my colleague from Durham West is going to talk about the early 1970s and the airport lands and how he was involved earlier on. At that point, I guess I was still in high school. But I want to talk about today, because I know there have been decisions coming. People have been talking about this for a long time. But frankly, when we have a democratic society like we have here in this country, we expect a responsible government. In responsible governments, well, governments make decisions about land purchases for public reasons. Okay, that's fine. I can accept that.

Whether you agree or disagree is one side or another side of an issue. But when there are then decisions made to dispose of lands -- that is, surplus lands -- then let's be responsible again. Let's talk to people.

The government in Ottawa has been deciding this for a long time, and some of these people have been affected for a long time. They go back to the late 1980s, when some of the rumours were starting: "We're going to sell off some of these lands." Let me tell you, it's got to be very difficult.

If you take a look in the rural parts of my riding, the southern parts that are being affected here, we've got some nice little communities, Altona and Glasgow. They're just crossroads, really. But those people have built a sense of community.

If we looked at TV from when we were children, people of my generation looked at the Cleaver family, Leave It to Beaver. Back in those days, you used to go and borrow a pint of milk from your neighbour and stuff. That's a sense of community that doesn't exist in a lot of places any more, but if you go back into rural Ontario, then we actually have that sense of community there. That sense of community is a pride --

Interjections.

Mr O'Connor: If these people don't have any pride in their communities, I can't help them with that. I just wish they'd allow me the opportunity to speak for my constituents. Their concern is that they are being affected by this.

The first letter in this latest round appeared on my desk in early January, and I called up the constituent, who was very concerned about the government selling off this land: "They're not talking to us." Then the next letter showed up, a tenant. I've got the letters here. They're in the rural part of Uxbridge township. Let me just read a little part of this:

"This takes in the two hamlets of Glasgow and Altona. To those of us that live in this area, these two hamlets are really just one whole community. There is still a fair number of original residents living there, and even more like my family that have been living there for a long time. My husband and I have been there for 15 years."

You've got to have a sense of community after 15 years of living in a community. So I was distressed. They came to me, and some of them are here today. I thank them for coming down.

I was distressed that they weren't getting consulted. I sent a letter off right away to the Minister of State (Transport). It's very simple, that I've received a number of letters of concern from constituents of mine regarding the sale of the airport lands, and if there's any news, would they please keep me up to date. Well, that didn't happen. From one government member to another, that didn't even happen. It just destroys faith between people if we as government members can't try to cooperate with people.

I received another letter in response to that: Yes, I'll be put on the mailing list. It's rather a form one. I appreciated the response, that I was going to get that. Well, I got a call that they had opened up a public information office and they're going to hold public information, but I found that out from one of my constituents. They opened up the information office, they closed the information office, and I didn't even hear anything from the Minister of State (Transport) in Ottawa. So I sent a letter. They sent a letter saying, "We're sorry that we didn't include you and let you know that this was happening."

If we take a look at the Walker property, for example, in part of Uxbridge, if we go back to the early 1920s, the Oak Ridges moraine ended up a desert, the reason being that people started farming in the south part of what was Ontario county at the time. The good farm land was gone quickly and then they moved up on to the moraine and started farming, but unfortunately it wasn't good farm land. It ended up like a desert.

Here we have Mr and Mrs Walker: They buy some of the land, start planting trees, and here we are seven years later, a year ago in the spring, and we had an opportunity, with cooperation of the Metro conservation authority, to protect some very valuable green space on the Oak Ridges moraine. That's cooperation. That's working with people. In fact, the Durham Environmental Network held a walk just through the woods, through the Walker property, opened it up to the public so the public could get a chance to stroll through some of the finest hardwood forest the province has, less than an hour from Toronto.

It was because of cooperation: government being responsible and working with other agencies to have something happen.

Here was a tenant who had been a tenant for a long time on the property and had turned a desert wasteland on the Oak Ridges moraine, on the headwaters of the Duffin Creek, into a very good aquifer holding area for those valuable resources. We should never discount what one person can do. We should never discount the fact that, well, we've got some tenants here. "Let's sell the land off. We've got a fire sale. We've got to move quickly." Let's talk to these people. As I said in this Legislature on October 6, these people in some cases are young families. Some are seniors. Some are disabled people.

These people are tenants and they deserve an opportunity to discuss and talk about an orderly sale. Let's include them in the process.

Including them in the process isn't opening up a public information centre, saying, "We want to talk to you," and then closing it up and saying, "Oh, sorry, we're not going to talk about it right now." I guess it doesn't make sense to talk about it; maybe there's a federal election on. I find that very disheartening.

These people have been living this time, through this very difficult period, and I think there needs to be an opening up. That's why the government of Ontario had to move in: to try to ensure that there be some openness here.

I want to close with that. I've been involved in this process not nearly as long as some of my colleagues, but when we have a sense of community, of real community, of people, families that are sharing property together -- maybe they just live on the land and the farmer is using the rented property from the federal government to do some active farming. We shouldn't discourage good farm land. We shouldn't discourage it from being used for farm land.

I support this resolution. I appreciate my colleague bringing it forward. I think it's an important time. I think we have to protect our agricultural resources as well as our natural resources, and we need to include people as much as we can.

Mr Curling: I just want, in the short time I have, to commend Lois James and the Save the Rouge people, who have been advocating the protection of good, valuable lands and using them for proper purposes for a very, very long time. I want to welcome them here. Continue your struggle. I remember the time when the People or Planes struggle went on. That was quite an event and continued to be that the people's voice be heard. They have been an influence in protecting valuable lands.

I'm really impressed that the government has come forward on protecting this land. As a matter of fact, the Rouge Valley, as you know, one of the most beautiful places in the world, is situated in Scarborough North, my riding, which I'm proud to represent, the riding which this government at one stage was having some thoughts of putting a dump site near. Can you imagine that?

To say to them that they'll put a dump site there -- we were in shock. We were in complete disarray. As a matter of fact, the Tories have said, "We will put $10 million there in order to protect the Rouge," but there are of course a tremendous number of hurdles before they can get the $10 million for a park. No, it's government paying lipservice to the main and most important issue of protecting that land. So let us as politicians not continue to play this game.

I recall too the great Honourable Bob Rae, then the Leader of the Opposition, standing in the Rouge and calling the leader, David Peterson, a liar when he was trying, struggling, very much so, in order to protect the place. Then here we are now, coming in so holy that we want to protect that. Let's take them up on their word. Let's say yes, that the federal government, the Tories who want to sell these lands without having a concept of how we should use them, and the government here, which is also trying to speculate in all kinds of respects, saying, "Maybe we should put a dump site near there" -- of all the things, the hypocrisy in those kinds of statements.

We must make sure that we get our priorities right. The people themselves are saying to you, and listen to them carefully, "This valuable land around here must be used for good and proper usage." Of course, they are willing to sit down for proper consultation, something the NDP government hasn't any concept of, what the word "consultation" is about. If I had two hours here, I would tell you how they reneged in the consultative manner in which they have proceeded on many, many bills.

The federal government, of course, with its debt, repentant, sells off the airport, sells off that, gives its friends all kinds of jobs and now says that it wants to sell these lands.

Let us be consistent. Look at the people who live there, who understand the issue, who know what the purpose of the land should be. I remember our mayor, Joyce Trimmer, who wanted to build executive houses in the Rouge Valley and then found that the people said, "No, let us preserve that land." I commend them for coming here and fighting for their cause.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry and East Grenville.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Thank you, Mr Speaker, you got it all in. I am also pleased to participate in this debate for a very short period of time, in the time allotted in private members' hour.

The interesting thing that I find is that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food is bringing forth a resolution. It has a great deal of political overtones. Do you recall not too long ago the city of London annexed 64,000 acres of farm land from Middlesex county? The member for Middlesex stood up and fought it. Would you believe that she was a member of the government and she fought that annexation tooth and nail?

What do we have now? We have the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture bringing forth a very political resolution. But 5,100 acres are involved, when indeed he supported a 64,000-acre annexation, in spite of his own colleague from his own party being totally opposed.

I'll read just a little bit of information that might intimidate the government a little bit. It comes from the Middlesex Women for the Support of Agriculture, totally fighting Bill 75, the London annexation of 64,000 acres. Some of the points that were made I will repeat, just to make sure that this government remembers what happened only six months ago.

"We recognize and appreciate the importance of agriculture in the life and the economy of Ontario. The city of London has a record of land mismanagement. There is a lack of rural representation in the proposed new city.

"If Bill 75 is approved as is, 38% of Middlesex county's commercial and industrial tax base will be confiscated by the city.... Ultimately, this will take taxes away from all of southwestern Ontario's" rural "tax base."

Yes, we must preserve farm land. We must also preserve the people who farm it, the farmers. Would you believe that in the last two years, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food had a reduction of 10% of its budget on an annual basis? Yet this government wants to preserve agricultural land, at least it says so, in spite of the 64,000-acre annexation by the city of London.

I think, with all due respect to the member who brought this forward, it's way too political even to be debated. You've got to do what you say you're going to do. Don't go saying one thing and doing the opposite. I think this bill cannot be supported because of the inconsistency that this government has shown over its last year or two.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): It's my pleasure to rise on this occasion to speak to this because, quite frankly, for me this is not a political issue. This is an issue that I began in 1972 as a student belonging to no political party and fought against the expropriation of these lands because it was wrong then and it's wrong today for the federal government to continue in its policies of not including the residents in planning.

I think we have to stop this political rhetoric around this land and start to say what is most important. This issue is primarily a people issue in terms of the tenants and what's going to happen to them. It's an agricultural land preservation issue, because most of this land is class 1 agricultural land, with some class 2 and class 3 thrown in. It's also an environmental issue because it is adjacent to one of the largest parks in the world in terms of its urban proximity to a city.

I think we need to have some idea of how big a parcel of land we're talking about. While I know it's not correct in terms of being able to use visual aids in this chamber, I would ask indulgence. This is a satellite photograph of the greater Toronto area. Toronto is here. The parcel of land that we're talking about, the parcel of land that we need to plan is 60 square miles, the size of the city of Toronto. When it overlays this area, you can see the size, you can see how important this piece of land is in terms of its size, its agricultural production and its agricultural capacity.

Just to give this chamber and others an idea of what this land was capable of producing at its height, I will read from a book that was spawned out of the mismanagement of the whole issue back in 1972. It's written by Walter Stewart and it's called Paper Juggernaut. I think it's important that we recognize that we're not just talking about preservation of agricultural land and people here; we can also say that this area can produce jobs. Just listen to the capacity that this land was capable of at that time. This is a quote from Walter Stewart.

"Once, four million gallons of milk were taken off this land every year, and every year the area poured out 200,000 eggs, over a million pounds of beef, 375,000 pounds of pork, 45,000 bushels of wheat and 30,000 chickens. But these were the crops of people who grew up here. Now what the area grows mostly is a hell of a lot of corn."

He goes on to say, "It was not a hurricane that devastated this area. Neither flood nor fire nor famine wreaked this havoc. The destruction was entirely man-made, the byproduct of misdirected memos."

I think we have to understand that what we're talking about here is a new phase in the issue of this land. With the sweetheart deal that was signed with the Tories for the Pearson International Airport, the airport in Pickering is dead. Now, more than ever, we need to have a planning process in place that allows us to plan not just for the 5,100 acres that are now to be sold but for all 18,600 acres of the federal land. It needs to be included with the 8,000 acres of the provincial land, where this provincial government is undergoing a process to determine what best that future is for those people who live there and for the land in its agricultural capacity.

Again, if you take a look at the map, we're talking about a line across here of the Oak Ridges moraine, where this government has instituted a study to determine what is best for this area and how to preserve its natural and agricultural and environmental heritage. But this study too will be ignored by the selling off of this land in small parcels that make no sense either environmentally or agriculturally, nor will it stem the urban sprawl that is costing the taxpayers of this province so mightily in terms of paying for the infrastructure that cannot be paid for out of the taxes.

In fact the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has indicated that the river valley systems -- Petticoat Creek, which has its roots in the middle of these lands, tributaries of the Rouge, tributaries of Duffin Creek, both east and west -- come out of these lands. These are important fish grounds. These are cold water spawning grounds and we need to preserve them. We need to plan in order to do this.

This land is adjacent to the Rouge park. There are wildlife corridors that can be planned to encourage and enhance the genetic diversity of the species in this area, but all of this will be lost if this land is sold off in a way that makes no economic sense.

The federal government has promised that it will participate in the creation of the Rouge park to the tune of $10 million. We are still waiting for some of that money to be allocated into this park and in this place at this time so that we can preserve the land.

I think it's important to recognize that the municipalities in this area do not support this premature selling off of the land, and we need to recognize that this land needs to be preserved.

In the closing minutes that I have, with the death of this airport, I reiterate that we need to plan and we need to do it in a way that makes sense.

David Crombie, in his early years as the mayor of Toronto passed a resolution, in 1972, saying that it was a mistake to take this land. Again, in the watershed report of the royal commission on the waterfront he made two recommendations, number 79 and number 80, that indicated that this area should be planned jointly.

The train went on the track. The feds put the train on the track when they told the residents that they had 30-day leases, and then they gave the province and the municipality 30 days to make an indication as to whether they were going to buy it or not. That's what got this process going and that's why it was short-circuited.

I would just like to quote from Isobel Thompson in the closing moments I have:

"What this did socially will never be measured. The families that were broken up, the neighbours who turned against each other, the friends who fell out, the people who took to drink, the hearts that went, the way it affected people. How many moved, how many gave up, how many turned against government, any government? There was no humanity in them. Old people would call at 11 o'clock at night, frightened out of their wits, and we would have to go over and calm them. To the government, they were just so many bodies to be moved."

I submit to you that they aren't so many bodies to be moved; they need to be protected, and this Legislature should do so.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Huron has two minutes to reply.

Mr Klopp: I'd like to thank all the members who participated today. I think Gerry Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, made a very good opening remark when he said there are some decisions in this House that you can reverse, as different governments come and go, but there are others that you make a decision on and there is no reversing. I think those are wise words.

I'd like to thank the Durham-York and Durham West members who have done a lot, since their election in the fall of 1990, on this issue. In fact, if I can go back to the member for Markham and his comments about how the federal government announced in 1978 that it was going to sell, so what's the surprise, well, the surprise is that it never consulted properly. In fact, since we've been here in 1990 our government has pushed, along with the groups that are here today, to get some discussion going, and it hasn't been done.

It's a little bit like telling someone, "Get ready, there's going to be a race," and then all of a sudden yelling, "Start." You're told, "Well, I told you there's going to be a race," but you were never given any good planning. That's what this is about.

Mr Cousens touched a little bit on Bill 143. Well, I find that just sad. The members in the area of the GTA would like to have it both ways, some of the members. They want the waste to go my riding, to Huron, and not fix the problem. I think Bill 143 was needed. People in the areas have to fix their problems. This government, on the other side, has pushed very much for waste reduction in a way that no other government has done. In fact it even makes it a little difficult for industry that we've pushed for tougher rules. The member for Markham stands up lots of times and says the government's against business. I find that to be totally sad.

To my colleague for S-D-G, I appreciate his comments about Bill 75. I was a strong opponent of that issue. One of the things that MMA and the city all agreed to was that we'd have tough land preservation for the lands in that area, the city. I am going to hold him to that.

In closing, I'd appreciate your support. In fact, I remember the PC member Dianne Cunningham who wanted the London annexation. Thank you very much. I hope we can all vote on this. Take care.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for private members' business has expired.

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES DROITS CIVILS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 27 standing in the name of Mr Harnick. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Harnick has moved second reading of Bill 56,

An Act to protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I wonder if this bill can be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee of justice? All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing. A majority of the House being in agreement, this bill stands referred to the standing committee of justice.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 28 standing in the name of Mr Klopp. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Klopp has moved private member's notice of motion 26. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

We've debated all the matters we had to debate. Therefore, I will leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1201 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROGRAMME D'ALPHABÉTISATION

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Trente-cinq pour cent de la population franco-ontarienne active est incapable de lire et d'écrire suffisamment bien pour fonctionner de manière normale dans la vie de tous les jours. Son pourcentage d'analphabétisme est deux fois plus élevé que chez les anglophones ontariens.

Dans les dix dernières années, des progrès importants avaient été faits en matière d'alphabétisme des francophones. Le gouvernement met maintenant ces acquis en danger.

Il y a d'abord le problème du transfert de la responsabilité de l'alphabétisation au Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre. Je pense, comme la majorité des intéressés, que les besoins des analphabètes dépassent largement les cadres de la formation professionnelle. J'espère que le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones est d'accord avec moi.

Ensuite, je crois qu'il est inacceptable qu'il n'y ait qu'un représentant francophone sur plus de 20 au sein de cette commission.

En plus de cela, des groupes d'alphabétisation francophones nous ont dit que leur survie même était menacée puisque le gouvernement avait coupé jusqu'à 50 % du budget de plusieurs de ces organismes.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise in the House today to advise members that the elementary teachers of the East Parry Sound Board of Education have been on strike for the past five instructional days.

I am certain we all share the belief that the primary responsibility of both boards of education and teachers is the instruction of students. We cannot allow the education or futures of our young people to be jeopardized. I have spoken to both the Minister of Education and Training and representatives of the Education Relations Commission on several occasions in order to impress upon them the need to resolve this issue.

Having experienced a similar situation in west Parry Sound in 1982 that took some 51 instructional days and three months to resolve, I am well aware of the negative impact which strikes have on our students and the bitterness that they create in the communities they serve. We cannot allow this ordeal to be repeated in east Parry Sound.

I have received hundreds of phone calls over the past week and a half from concerned parents, students, ratepayers and educators expressing their concerns about this matter. They want the minister to take the initiative to terminate this impasse. I could not agree with them more wholeheartedly and I want to know what steps the Minister of Education is taking to ensure that the students' education is not jeopardized and that this matter is resolved as expeditiously as possible, in a manner that is fair and equitable to all concerned.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Yesterday, the Premier announced that the government of Ontario would act upon the clear directive given by Ontarians to the cabinet committee on the North American free trade agreement that we must challenge NAFTA.

Last spring in public hearings, witness after witness from social advocacy, environmental, labour, academic, senior, student, teaching, ecumenical, unemployed worker and agricultural groups and trade experts urged the government of Ontario to use every means possible to resist NAFTA. In most cases, those who came to the committee hearings were the victims of the free trade agreement that Brian Mulroney said in 1984 he would never pursue.

As it happens, free trade has indeed cost Ontario tens of thousands of jobs, put horrendous pressure on our social programs and jeopardized those who are the most vulnerable members of our society. NAFTA will further erode our ability as a province to protect resources like water and energy, protect our environment, ensure safe and fair labour practices and ensure the continuance of health care and social programs.

That we must resist this deplorable violation of our society and provincial jurisdiction is without question. What is galling is the irresponsible conduct yesterday of the opposition parties. Clearly, they are supporters of federal Tories who created this despicable trade deal and the federal Liberals too cowardly to speak out against it.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to announce that this morning the standing committee on finance and economic affairs agreed to a proposal the Liberal caucus put before it, and that is that the committee conduct a study of the underground economy.

This is a significant problem, in our opinion, for the economy of Ontario and one that I think will benefit very much from a public airing. So I'm pleased that the Conservative Party and, this morning, the caucus of the NDP agreed to allow this study to go forward.

I'm hopeful that we will have, firstly, a thoughtful analysis of the problem. I'm also hopeful that many of the interested parties that have a view on the underground economy will have an opportunity to publicly come before the committee and give us their thoughts on not just the size of the problem and some of the root causes of the problem, but also some of the recommendations for the Legislature on possible solutions.

I'm not naïve enough to underestimate the complexity of the problem, but clearly, as we look at the challenges of revenue, the challenges that we see demonstrated daily in Cornwall with tobacco smuggling, and the problems that we hear from people in the home renovation business, it's an issue that deserves a public airing. I'm pleased that we will be doing that through our finance and economic affairs committee.

TEACHER'S DISPUTE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Today is day 24 of the Lambton county teachers' strike, which is affecting 6,700 students. The issue is pupil-teacher ratio. Because of the government's social contract cuts, the board must cut its expenditures. All would agree they cannot resort to the local tax base for further dollars; there's no more money.

I've asked the minister twice to show leadership and legislate the teachers back to work. In his response to my question on October 12, he stated, "We have a process in place and everybody's rights have to be respected." What about the students' rights? They are the most important party in this dispute and they are in a semestered school.

He also stated on October 12 that there is precedence for legislating teachers back to work. In June 1981, the Minister of Education, the Honourable Bette Stephenson, introduced legislation, Bill 124,

an act to terminate the secondary school strike in Leeds and Grenville. Even though the Education Relations Commission reported "an absence of convincing evidence that jeopardy to courses of study exists at this time," she tabled this legislation. This legislation was intended to assist the parties to resolve the dispute, and it was really successful.

We understand the minister will be meeting with the ERC today and we expect leadership. We look forward to the tabling of legislation on Monday, October 18, for two reasons: first, to assist the parties in a resolution; and secondly, so that students will know exactly when they can get back to the classroom, where they deserve to be.

TWINNING OF ST CATHARINES AND PORT OF SPAIN

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): It is my pleasure to draw to your attention an event which has occurred quite recently in the city of St Catharines. St Catharines and the city of Port of Spain in Trinidad and Tobago have now completed 25 years of being twinned.

Back in 1968, not many other communities saw the advantage of mondialization. I know not many members will have heard the term "mondialization," but as a theory it attempts to bring about the universal understanding of different peoples by promoting cooperation and tolerance.

Citizens of both communities regularly travel back and forth to share major activities in their respective communities. February 1993 saw St Catharines send a large contingent to enjoy the carnival season in Trinidad and Tobago. This past September witnessed 70 visitors who came to our fair city to participate in the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival.

It is my belief that twinning has provided St Catharines with an appreciation of a culture somewhat different from our own. Many friendships have developed, and out of this have sprung a number of business relationships to the advantage of both parties, both in St Catharines and in the city of Port of Spain.

To all of the volunteers in both communities, my heartfelt thanks for 25 years of commitment and dedication. The next 25 years will present many challenges but in truth can only serve to ensure peace and cooperation.

VIOLENCE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The revelation that collector cards depicting individuals who have committed heinous crimes may be distributed in Ontario is revolting to everyone who has viewed the horror and sadness faced by the families and friends of victims of crime in their communities.

Those of us who have shared the pain and anguish of the families of Kristen French of St Catharines and Leslie Mahaffy of Burlington find it difficult to believe that the editors of Eclipse Comics would find it necessary to publish, among their true crime trading cards, the individuals who have been accused of participation in the murder of these innocent young people. The insensitivity of those responsible for this act is reprehensible, and their greed, which motivates them to appeal to the base instincts of people, is to be condemned.

I call upon the Attorney General of Ontario to introduce legislation which will prohibit the sale of this tasteless and hurtful material to the public, and in particular to young, impressionable boys and girls. Those who cry censorship should meet the parents, family and friends of the young victims. If they did, and if they possessed an ounce of decency and compassion, they would support legislation and the condemnation of this publication.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On behalf of the PC caucus, I rise in the House to recognize the 64th anniversary of the "persons" case, a precedent-setting decision by the Privy Council of Great Britain which declared that women were in fact persons and were eligible to hold public office.

The decision in the "persons" case was strongly influenced by the efforts of five Alberta suffragettes: Henrietta Muir Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Emily Murphy and Irene Parlby. We applaud these remarkable women and the countless others who have fought for women's rights.

This morning, the Toronto branch of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, or LEAF, held its eighth annual Persons Day breakfast, which the leader of my party attended. LEAF is a national non-profit organization which litigates precedent-setting equality cases and provides public education on the issues of gender, equality and justice.

Women have made great strides since the "persons" case. We have been to outer space, we have served as justices on the Supreme Court of Canada, and Kim Campbell is this country's first female Prime Minister.

Despite these accomplishments, full equality has yet to be achieved. However, thanks to the vital work of the suffragettes, LEAF and others, the barriers to equality for women are being removed.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): National Medicare Day is approaching. It's a day of protest about what's happening with medicare in Canada.

As you know, Ottawa has been destroying our health care system, and so far it's slashed funding by about $34 billion. Ottawa has massively cut its share of spending on health care and higher education in Ontario. These transfer payments have declined from a high of almost 52% in 1979-80 to 31% in 1993-94. Ontario alone will lose $2.7 billion in 1993-94 as a result of Ottawa's cuts to the programs that have made us the envy of the world.

Since 1982-83, Ontario has lost almost $15 billion in health and education funding. Total losses for all the provinces since 1982-83 amount to almost $41 billion. It's shocking. It's an assault on our elderly and our children. While Ottawa continues to suck the lifeblood out of public-funded and universally accessible health care, the provinces are left to preserve the services in our hospitals, doctors' offices, clinics and community health centres.

This government has fought to preserve health care. We've done this by preserving access to health care services, expanding community services and reforming programs. People should be asking if their elected officials in Ottawa support the Canada Health Act and if their elected officials in Ottawa are going to restore transfer payments. These cuts are a disgrace to the social values Canadians hold.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon a former member of the assembly from the riding of Perth and indeed a former Speaker of the assembly, the honourable Hugh Edighoffer, seated in the Speaker's gallery. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I rise today to announce new regulations on disclosing the compensation paid to executives of companies which are publicly traded in Ontario.

The new regulations will require that companies tell their shareholders the compensation paid to their chief executive officer and each of their other top four executives. They will also have to explain the process by which those decisions were reached. Previously, companies had to disclose only an aggregate total for all executives.

As well, we will require companies to show investors how their shares have performed against a market average over the last five years.

Companies will also have to reveal non-routine loans they have made or guaranteed to directors, executives, senior officers and others.

These changes benefit a very large group; namely, individual and institutional investors that have put their money into companies whose shares trade publicly in Ontario. They have taken on ownership, with all the risks and rewards that attach to ownership. We believe they, in return, have a right to full information on the companies they own. In particular, they have a right to know how much the people who run those companies are paid and how that decision was reached. These new regulations will ensure that they are told, and told in a way that is complete and easy to understand.

By making these changes, we are responding to investors who have urged that Ontario set higher standards of disclosure. These new rules make our disclosure requirements very similar to those in the United States. They put Ontario at the forefront of openness and accountability to shareholders.

These changes give shareholders the information they need in order to compare a company's performance with the way it rewards its top people. We are showing that we are committed to the investor's right to make informed decisions, which is the basis of a healthy financial system.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to respond. The basis on which we evaluate any proposal like this is: Will it help our investors? Will it help to attract investors to the Ontario economy? Will it help Ontario companies to stay here and grow? Will it help to develop capital?

I think that for the investors there is an opportunity to have a better understanding of both how the executives are compensated and also how they are rewarded for performance in these proposals. While I appreciate that there are strong arguments on both sides of this issue, and I am sure the Minister of Finance has heard those strong arguments, I suspect that if you use the litmus test that we use -- which is: Will this help investors feel more confident? Will it help investors better understand how companies are run and motivated? -- on balance it would come down more positively than negatively.

Hon Mr Laughren: It's a pretty tepid endorsement.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Finance says "tepid endorsement." I think he spent probably three years debating this issue and he appreciates that there are arguments on both sides.

As we look down the road, I have no doubt that the future of our Ontario economy depends on our ability to grow what we will call home-based multinationals. They won't be the only salvation of our economy, but they will be an important element. An important element of that is having the environment where they can raise long-term patient capital, to use the jargon of the marketplace.

For the investors, I think this can provide some element of comfort for them. For the companies themselves, some of them may be somewhat ambivalent about it. While this may not be something that would cause an organization to choose to raise its money elsewhere, I think as we look at the totality of the environment here, one thing we have to always be vigilant of is, can we develop major, long-term, home-based multinationals here? As I say, I think that on balance this proposal may be helpful for raising capital. I don't think it will be the sort of proposal that would cause any organization to choose to not list on the Ontario market.

On a similar note, while we in the public arena are demanding of the private sector fuller disclosure, it's only fair to say that I have an awful lot of comments from the private sector on the public sector doing a better job of disclosing its finances.

It was the Provincial Auditor who, in his report dated July 23, 1993, made a recommendation which we fully support; in fact, we've made this proposal publicly several times. The Provincial Auditor is saying it is time to change the way the province reports its finances. He makes a very strong recommendation that we apply to ourselves the same kind of medicine we apply to the private sector. He says here:

"Therefore, during the 1993-94 fiscal year, I will strongly urge the government to base the financial statements on the recommendations of the public sector accounting and auditing board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants."

There is no doubt that if the Ontario government were a company, you could never get listed on the Ontario stock exchange. It would be impossible. There is no auditor who would sign the books. Now, the government's doing nothing illegal, the government is operating within its legal rights, but the books don't represent the state of the finances in the province.

I think the private sector has every right to say to us, to say to the Minister of Finance, "It is time that you apply the same restrictions on yourself, the same accounting techniques on yourself, as you apply to us." We don't mind that. While the recommendations from the Minister of Finance today are useful and interesting, I think we also have an equally large task to apply to ourselves.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The first thing we might add is that to some degree this government has inherited the problem with respect to government employees and disclosure of their amounts of money. It was the previous government, the Liberal government, that changed the program on how its disclosures were worked.

To say that and move on, though, would be unfair. If the government were being fair and upright, if it's going to want disclosure in private sector corporations of the four top-earning employees, including perks and all the rest that goes with private corporations, stock options and so on, surely to goodness it could apply the same rigid demands upon its own employees such as deputy ministers. We don't know how much a deputy minister earns; we've tried on many occasions, and all you get is a range.

It's rather ironic that they insist that private sector companies dealing with private money must be more stringently controlled than public sector employees dealing with taxpayers' money. That is unacceptable to this party.

Further to that, you can't find out what an executive assistant to a minister earns, but we can find out what the chairman of Ford makes. That doesn't seem reasonable. To me, that's something this government should have a long, hard look at before it introduces this kind of stuff, which we know is in the same mould as its NAFTA announcement yesterday: It's propping up Audrey McLaughlin and solidifying her single-point status in the polls.

I asked the minister whether or not the unions must disclose under the same rigid formula that you're asking private sector corporations to disclose under. Apparently not. Why is it that private sector companies have to disclose when government employees and union executives don't have to? It seems they'd rather pick and choose how stringent and tough they are when it comes to payroll, perks and salaries, but they don't want to apply the same formula to their employees or their union buddies.

The government has suggested in this statement through the Treasurer, "These changes give shareholders the information they need in order to compare a company's performance with the way it rewards its top people." Well, I think the people of this province have a right to know about your performance and the rewards you're getting for your performance with the budget, the deficit and the preflows that you're obviously manipulating, according to the auditor, to make it look somewhat better than our fiscal outlook actually is.

The auditor himself has said, in response to this government and the previous government's attitude towards preflows and towards budgeting processes: "There is a perception that the government is in reality managing and adjusting its actual results so they will more closely parallel its budgeted results. This, in turn, raises doubts concerning the integrity of the accounting process."

This is the auditor of the province of Ontario saying that he has serious doubts about the integrity of the accounting process by this government. That is sham