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

June 14, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1990

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1990

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

SKILLS TRAINING

BUDGET

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA

FOREST MANAGEMENT

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

NATURAL GAS SUPPLY

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

VISITOR

CHILD CARE

HYDRO RATES

WATER QUALITY

AIR TRAVEL INDUSTRY

CHILD CARE

CENTRAL STAMPINGS LTD

BIOMEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL

ONTARIO HYDRO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

EDUCATION FINANCING

PETITIONS

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

LIVESTOCK, POULTRY AND BEES DAMAGE COMPENSATION ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR L’INDEMNISATION EN CAS DE DOMMAGES CAUSÉS À DU BETAIL, À DES VOLAILLES ET À DES ABEILLES

JOHN GRAVES SIMCOE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION REPEAL ACT, 1990

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1990

Mr Rae moved second reading of Bill 172,

An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Women, People with Disabilities, Native People and Members of the Visible Minorities.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York South has moved second reading of Bill 172. According to the standing orders the member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr B. Rae: This bill which stands in my name is the product of a great deal of work, after a lengthy period of consultation among many people in the communities that are affected by this legislation, by the labour movement. I want to begin by expressing my thanks to all of those who have participated in the drafting of this bill.

This legislation is the product of a sense of frustration, because back in the early 1980s, when I was sitting a little further down the row here and the Liberals were occupying this part of the world, it was the common view of our parties while we were in opposition that we needed to take a new approach to the question of equal pay and that we needed as well to take a new approach to the issue of employment equity, of affirmative action for people who have been systematically discriminated against in the labour market.

As a result of that view, when the 1985 election results were known, our party and the Liberal Party signed an accord, about five years ago, in which the government-that-was-to-be committed itself to moving ahead on the question of employment equity, committed itself to a new approach to human rights and committed itself to moving on equal pay.

We all know that the pay equity legislation is far from perfect, that it excludes a great many people and that it leaves out literally hundreds of thousands of women, as many perhaps as a million, who are not covered by the legislation.

The government has not really moved at all in the area of employment equity. Over the years we have seen a variety of press statements, various statements made about what they would like to do and how they would like to do it, but the reality is that there is as yet no law that deals with the need to change the way the labour market works as it relates to people and groups of people who have been discriminated against on a systematic basis.

That is why some time ago I decided to try to force the government’s hand in the only way that private members in a minority parliament have, and that is by encouraging people to come to us to draft a bill and to hope that the government will begin to respond to the agenda which is being established by us and respond before the election of 1990 or 1991.

I will not go over the number of times the Liberal Party has said that it is going to move on employment equity. All I can say is, it has not moved.

It is interesting that as recently as 31 May, just three weeks ago, the Ontario Advisory Council for Disabled Persons released its report which is called Workable: Fulfilling the Potential of People with Disabilities, which resulted from a two-year, comprehensive study of employment issues. It is interesting to note that, after extensive consultation, that report concludes that mandatory employment equity legislation, both in the public and in the private sectors, with goals and with timetables, is required to achieve a fair workplace.

The consensus, I would say, has grown to the point where everyone understands that the approach which says we are going to let things just work out the way they have always worked out and try, in the end perhaps, to do a little bit around the edges on a voluntary basis has failed. It has failed women, people with disabilities, native people and members of visible minority communities. I think it has failed everyone, because everyone suffers when people with disabilities, women, native people and members of visible minority communities suffer discrimination.

The legislation, which is quite detailed and quite specific in terms of what we think needs to be done, describes how we expect employers and employees to get together and establish plans that are based on an assessment of the workplace as it really is, that are based on an assessment of where the barriers to employment equity exist and what can be done about them.

It sets out the establishment of a commission on employment equity which would have the responsibility, clearly and specifically, to educate, to work with employers and employees, and yes, if it feels that a plan is not in place or that the plan that is in place is not possibly going to achieve the objectives of the legislation, it can recommend another plan.

It provides for enforcement, for the establishment of a board which would be made up of members of the target group communities, employers and employees as appointed by the various employer groups, including the government, as well as by the trade union movement.

I have heard it said by some that employment equity sounds good, but really in fact there are a lot of people, even within the labour movement, for example, who do not think it is going to work. That is why we sat down with members of the labour movement for the last three years, and we have proved that it can work.

For example in

section 12 with respect to the question of seniority, we have said very clearly that where seniority rights are set out in a collective agreement or where there are established practices in the place of employment in relationship to seniority, that seniority in and of itself cannot be considered to be a barrier to employment equity when dealing with the issues of layoff and recall. I think that is an important message to send out to people who are now working, to say to them that their basic right to employment, their basic right to a job, their security interest in a job, is not going to be affected by employment equity legislation.

That is not the purpose or thrust of employment equity legislation. The purpose of employment equity legislation is to say quite simply that the employers of this province have to become part of the solution and that the solution to the discrimination which exists in the labour market has to be found in the labour market itself; it has to be found in the workplace itself.

People who are blind or people who are deaf do not want welfare. They want a job. People who are members of a visible minority want to have the assurance that they are going to be given a fair shake, not only at the low-paying jobs but at the jobs with managerial and administrative responsibility.

I have visited native reserves in this province where the unemployment rate in the wintertime is as high as 85% and 90%. We know that the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Hydro, Bell Canada and other major employers in these communities do not have effective employment equity program in place which will really make a difference for people who are living on those reserves. We know the numbers, we know the statistics, but what is hard to describe is the sense of frustration, the sense of exclusion and, yes, the sense of being forced to live on the margin because we have not yet put enough justice into the way in which our labour market works.

I say to the employer community in this province and I say to those who are responsible for the management of the labour market of this province, and that includes the public sector and the private sector, they are now part of the problem. It is up to them to become part of the solution. The labour movement, the members of the visible minority community, the members of disabled groups, women and native people are ready to become part of the solution.

I believe that whatever imperfections it may have, Bill 172 represents a necessary next step in the achievement of justice for people who have been locked out and left out for too long.

Mrs Cunningham: It gives me pleasure to address Bill 172,

An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Women, People with Disabilities, Native People and Members of Visible Minorities, as presented by the member for York South, the leader of the official opposition party.

This morning I think we are seeing the results of some hard work on behalf of the member for York South. We are also hearing him speak, to some degree, of frustration around the lack of response to a promise by the Liberal government that it would be coming forth with legislation to support employment equity in the workplaces in the province.

I will be very clear from the beginning. It has always been my hope that the workplaces, the employers of Ontario, would recognize the real need of individuals from all walks of life, groups such as women, the disabled, native people, members of visible minorities, to have a fair and equal opportunity to be gainfully employed in Ontario. We find with the figures and the facts and the numbers, as we have looked very carefully at them over the last decade, that this is not happening.

We do know that there have been wonderful attempts by private enterprise, small business, large business and certainly the public sector in some hospitals and school boards and certainly government itself across Canada and within individual provinces to provide these kinds of opportunities. The results have not been particularly fruitful, but there have been some gains. I think the time has come that we very seriously look at appropriate legislation where we can rely on programs as models to be part of that thoughtful discussion around which legislation can and cannot work, based on experience and practice within our own province and across Canada and North America.

I compliment the member with his first attempt at this legislation. I will say quite frankly that there are certainly many parts of this bill that I do not approve of, that I would expect some serious discussion on. There are many weaknesses in the legislation, but I will compliment the member because he has put forth a great deal of effort to give this Legislative Assembly an opportunity to begin. I do not feel that it was his responsibility, but he is as frustrated as others at the lack of opportunity to get a good start on this. So my interest this morning is to say that we be given ample opportunity, as the citizens of Ontario should be, in committee to discuss this legislation in full.

One of the concerns I have and one of the weaknesses in the legislation is that it gives employers only one year to develop and post employment equity plans. I would like to speak to one plan that relates to women. It would have been called an affirmative action plan in its time and I think it was begun by the North York Board of Education, perhaps in 1984. I am speaking from memory. I think that board at that particular time developed some targets for women in positions of responsibility, and it has been quite successful, but it was a 10-year time frame. It has made significant gains.

It is a program that I feel this Legislative Assembly should be looking at for guidance, and there will be others across the province that we can look at.

They will say with regard to that particular board, groups of disabled people, visible minorities and native peoples that it has not been easy to have employment equity programs. They have looked at it, and they would have, I think, rather special advice for this Legislative Assembly as we look at any legislation and time frames to meet the needs of those particular groups.

The North York board, which we discussed this legislation with in detail, also had some concerns, and it would of course appreciate the opportunity to speak at the appropriate time, as this bill, hopefully, reaches the committee stage. I think all of us know it is important in society today that if we are going to meet the needs of our very special people, when it comes to their sincere desire to work, we will have to look at programs that have been successful and modelled by them.

All of us should be aware that one third of all job discrimination cases which come before the Ontario and Canadian human rights commissions are based on people with disabilities. We are not doing a good job. We have people in our society who are capable of working, who want to work. Yesterday we spoke, I think, with some degree of passion around our concerns for children who live in poverty.

We should also be concerned that the people we are speaking about today, many of whom have children, live in poverty because they are not gainfully employed to the best of their ability and to the best of the ability of the workplace to respond to their talents, their desires and their energies. We have to do more than what we have done now.

I would say that one year is not enough. We have a lot of model programs out there and they would agree. I would also say, as we look at some of the weaknesses in the bill, that I have never been one to take a look at a quota system. It is unrealistic and I think we need a great deal of discussion around that part of the bill.

I think the bill sometimes, for want of a better word, is confrontational in its approach. We could be more thoughtful of including the employers in the discussion and treating them as an equal partner in the workplace. That is something we could speak to at great extent in the committee itself.

We should also know that as to the employers having to establish positive practices and reasonable accommodation under subsection 3(7) of the bill, the reasonable accommodation measures that they must establish are anything but reasonable for many employers across the province. I think we would want to hear from them on improving that part of the legislation. I will be specific in saying that flexible work hours are not appropriate for all places of employment, but they may be for some, and of course I am a supporter of that concept.

I feel that working at home, interpreters, those kinds of things need to be discussed as part of guidelines to the legislation, and they have to be discussed so that at the same time the discussion around this legislation becomes very much a public discussion.

I compliment the member for York South on his initiative. I would also like to say that my belief has been that we should begin as far as possible in the public service of the province of Ontario, as we have with the pay equity legislation, to let the private sector know that we are successful and to provide a model within the public service itself. I would hope that these would be the steps that are intended by this legislation, and if they are not, that we could have very serious discussion around them before this bill becomes law.

It has been my thinking, as I have travelled around the province of Ontario, that there was a great deal of concern around the pay equity legislation in the province of Ontario. Certainly there are very few people who are not in favour of the principle of both employment equity and pay equity, but in order to get the workplaces on side I feel that it is not just the principle we have to believe in; it is some very clear examples of how we can make legislation work.

We have a wonderful opportunity with this legislation not to make the same mistake that the government made in the drafting of the pay equity legislation. We have some models to look at there, and we know that time frames must be changed in that particular piece of legislation, that they are somewhat limited and that we have a long way to go.

It is my intent this morning to support this bill and to support its referral to the appropriate committee where it can be discussed publicly and where the member can get some good advice from the workplaces where they have employment equity programs that are working. It is an opportunity for us to recognize our responsibility and that of the workplace to meet the needs of women, the needs of people with disabilities, the needs of our native population and the needs of visible minorities.

I lend my support to the bill. I would hope that the Legislative Assembly would understand that I also recognize the many weaknesses. But I am the kind of person who speaks in favour of strengths and I am honoured to do so.

Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in this debate on this private member’s bill, Bill 172, the Employment Equity Act, 1990. In the few minutes I have to speak, I should make it emphatically clear that we on this side of the House fully support employment equity. I will go further to say that all members in this House support employment equity.

I want to commend the honourable member for presenting this bill. I understand his frustration because there are inadequacies in the system. We would like to hurry the process in order to correct it, but we must do it correctly.

I have tried over a period of years to find out from various individuals, groups and organizations what employment equity means to them. The members would be amazed at the various

definitions that were given. More interestingly, when they were asked, “How would you go about achieving this?” it is interesting that the answers we discovered were complex and also confusing.

Therefore, I have no problem at all in supporting in principle the honourable member’s private member’s bill. In plain, simple terms I regard employment equity, what it is all about, to be about access, access for people who are denied fair and equitable treatment in employment. Statistics and studies have shown over and over that women, people with disabilities, native people and members of visible minorities are paid poorly, experience a higher rate of unemployment and underemployment, and some are unable even to get into the building to make an application. We must break those barriers down.

It makes sense economically, it makes sense socially, and most important it makes sense from a humane point of view.

People are the most important resource we have. I am not quite sure that we treat them in that respect. We must establish a level playing field, and to do so it is important to recognize a very proactive strategy and initiatives on employment equity. The government has recognized that.

The members have heard these very wise words over and over again, and it applies very much so, that charity begins at home. What we have to do, as members know, as the largest employer in Ontario is that we must put our house in order first. Too often I get complaints at my constituency office that people are unable to move up in the system, to get jobs in government agencies and ministries. They feel very strongly because they are disabled, because they are a visible minority. So we must first make sure that we clean up our act.

In conclusion -- I will try to give my other colleagues a chance -- my colleagues have worked very hard, both the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and the member for York Centre. The proposal here is complex and requires careful consideration. I feel that many of the specific issues need to be addressed with a great deal of care.

I want to commend the honourable member for putting forth this bill, but I would say it goes far beyond and a horrid -- in his term he said, “We have to force the government to do something.” That is what we will not do. We will not be forced into actions that are inadequate. We will consider it carefully and of course I will make sure that we use some of the very logical arguments that the honourable member put in his private member’s bill.

Mr Philip: I will be brief since I know a number of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus wish to express their strong support for this bill, as I do. I know how much work, how much research and how much consultation has gone into the bill. I am proud that I have been a part of that process in meeting with the various groups of people who are concerned about the issues.

I know how anxious some of the people have been to see this bill in print and debated, and I commend them for their patience and for their understanding that legislation like this requires a lot of research, a lot of consulting, and a number of revisions and fine tuning. That has been done and today we have before us a bill that I believe is the most progressive employment equity bill anywhere. It benefits from our studies of some of the other jurisdictions, from some of the shortcomings of some of the other mandatory equity programs in those other jurisdictions.

I ask members not to label it as to what has happened in other jurisdictions, but to understand that this is an improvement on legislation that has been passed everywhere and anywhere else.

This is a bill that is one of balances. It is a bill that can be called a decentralized bill. Unlike the traditional approach of the Liberal government, which tends to impose a centralized bureaucracy and tell people what to do, it is a bill that actually forces the employer and the employees to get together and to work out a plan that is acceptable to all sides.

The plan accommodates both the equity seekers and the existing union and worker rights in the workplace. Because decisions about promotion and hiring always rest with the employer, employers are responsible under the bill for fulfilling their employment equity program. It takes into consideration some of the difficulties that the very small business people would have and therefore deals with that problem.

I wear a lapel pin that says, “Proud to be Canadian: Diversity in Unity.” Members of the visible minority, women’s and disabled groups want to be a dynamic part of Canada. They do not want a free ride, what they want is an equal ride and that is what this bill provides for. My parliamentary assistant Angela put it so well one day when she said, “This government thinks that it can buy us with cocktails, hors d’oeuvres and smiles, but at some time those of us in the visible minority groups want to say, ‘Where’s the meat?’”

If we pass this bill, the Liberals will have shown that there is meat and that they are concerned about the inequities in our society. If we look at the disabled, at present disabled persons have lower labour workforce participation rates than non-disabled people. Among those reporting a disability, only 43% of those who are of working age -- that is, between 15 and 64 -- are employed. Disabled Ontarians between the ages of 15 and 64 had gross incomes that were 46% lower than those of non-disabled Ontarians of the same age.

It is time we stood up for a Canada and for an Ontario that gives everyone an equal opportunity. The people in the disabled community, the people in the women’s groups, the people in visible minorities want an equal chance. They do not want a free ride. This bill provides for a decentralized, sensitive approach to bringing about a more equitable situation in the workplace. I would urge my colleagues in all parties to join and vote in favour of this bill.

Mr Sterling: I want to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that I am going to support his bill today, because probably the greatest goal that a politician has in entering the Ontario Legislature is to ensure that each and every citizen of the province has an equal opportunity to make his or her way in life as far as it is possible for us as legislators to make it so.

For some people it does not matter what set of rules we put down. Employment equity will mean getting the job or getting the promotion. However, if we can set up, and it is possible, a regime whereby we can ensure that those decisions are made in a fairer way, I am, as one member of the Progressive Conservative Party, willing to look at that method.

Recently we have been talking about and experiencing the implementation of another bill, dealing with pay equity in this province. We have been talking about pay equity legislation that kicked into effect for many private corporations on 1 January. I mention pay equity because we have now experienced the first few months of that legislation in place.

Unfortunately the legislation is not working in the private sector. There are now plants closing across this province because of that piece of legislation. I expect that many jobs will be lost in various parts of the province because of the pay equity legislation. I think that was because we did not address all the problems when we brought that legislation before this House and it was made in an ad hoc way in front of a committee in a minority Parliament. Therefore, we are now suffering the consequences of a bad piece of legislation.

No one can argue with the principle of pay equity. Nobody can argue with the principle of employment equity. That is why I and many of my colleagues are going to support it. Some of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus will not be supporting this bill, because they believe that the bill put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is a bureaucratic nightmare and that there are many, many deficiencies in the proposals he puts forward. But I say to any of the other members who might have an interest in this area that it is an area where we can explore the methods and process put forward by the Leader of the Opposition in a positive way.

The nature of a private member’s bill is that very few of them actually reach the final level of passage by this Legislature. A private member can use this process, however, to put it on the public agenda. I believe that is what the Leader of the Opposition is now doing. I urge the members of the Liberal Party not to follow the process they have undertaken in this Legislature with private members’ bills in the past -- that is, they will vote in favour of a piece of legislation like this but block further discussion on it when the Leader of the Opposition, as he no doubt will, asks that this bill be referred to committee -- so that his ideas can be discussed.

I look forward to discussing those ideas outside this Legislature in a standing committee where we can call the public before that committee and can hear them. I would say to the public who are watching and listening today that if the Liberals vote against the process of allowing this bill to be discussed, then they are voting against employment equity.

Mrs Sullivan: I will be supporting this bill. I am concerned about some of the specifics of the bill, but I believe that the principles put forward here are useful in the process of public discussion and will assist us in moving forward in defining some the issues.

I think employment equity is both a strategy and an objective. Using the phrase “employment equity” is really looking at programs that are designed to eliminate barriers to fair competition in the workplace that impede women, native people, visible minorities or the disabled, including at all times in an employment equity approach all levels in the occupational fields in an organization. An appropriate program would also include many of the things that have been discussed in the bill that is put forward here.

One of the things I particularly liked about this bill was the emphasis on skills training. That education and training is going to be very much a part of a full and consistent program.

Additionally, one of the things that goes hand in hand with employment equity initiatives, it seems to me, is pay equity. We are certainly under way in our pay equity programs. We have seen companies and organizations, as they are approaching pay equity, set their timetables and work with their employees to ensure that the considerations of both the workforce and the employer are taken into account in those programs. We have to understand that it does require sophisticated human resource strategy for companies to approach, for the most part, employment equity programs.

I also believe that internally set goals and timetables are very useful in terms of moving employment equity forward. I would like to refer to a couple of examples of companies that in fact have been recipients of the employment equity awards.

In 1987 General Motors of Canada and the Canadian Auto Workers union jointly developed an employment equity program. I was interested in reading that Bob White says that while the process is a slow one, progress is being made. Just to quote him: “Equality doesn’t happen by accident. You have to work like hell to achieve it.

But when you open the doors you find a great depth of talent.” The employer’s director of human resources, Mr Curd, also speaking of their experience as they were implementing their program, said: “We’ve inevitably found that when you can remove barriers and have full equality it’s good from a business sense. I wouldn’t take away from the size of the job there is to change attitudes -- it’s a big one. But the other point is that it can be done when there’s a commitment to get it done.” I think that is what management and union are proving at GM.

Du Pont Canada has also implemented a series of equity initiatives. One of their conclusions, announced at the time of the employment equity awards, was their belief that there should be no single approach for every company. Each program should be adapted to an organization’s unique corporate culture and needs. Their vice-president of human resources, Gerry Fox, suggests that, “To remain competitive it will be necessary for all businesses to seek out the best people and to create an environment in which their talents can flourish. Employers who do not do this will be putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage.”

In 1988 a smaller company than either GM or Du Pont, a company called Edwards, in Owen Sound, a unit of General Signal, received the employment equity award. Their president, Brian Veale, said: “I think that there is a lot of lipservice given to the whole issue of employment equity. It really isn’t until you put resources to the test of providing equity that you can ever claim any success.”

I think that those examples are useful in showing how well in fact employment equity can be put into place. There are certainly reservations, about which criteria and standards would be put into place against which employers can be compared, and the flexibility and recruitment. I think this is a good step forward and I congratulate the member on putting forward the bill.

Ms Bryden: I strongly support Bill 172, the member for York South’s private member’s bill on employment equity. This is ground-breaking legislation. It is far in advance of any other legislation in Canada to ensure fairness in the employment market for those who have been dealt out of the marketplace: women, the disabled, native people, visible minorities. It applies to both the public and the private sectors.

Society has turned a blind eye to the inequities of the job market for these groups of people. They all face barriers to employment and to fair treatment. These barriers must be knocked down. This bill addresses how those barriers can be removed. Only when that is done can employment equity become a reality in Ontario.

Today in Ontario women earn 64 cents for every dollar earned by men. Among persons in Ontario reporting a disability, 41.5% of those of working age are employed compared to 67.4% for the rest of the population, and many of those employed earn substandard wages. Only 51% of registered Indians in Ontario were in the labour force compared to a 67% participation rate for the whole population in a study done recently.

Members of visible minorities did have a greater overall labour participation rate in 1986 than the rest of the population, 74% compared to 69%, but overall they are the working poor. They have families to support and many are not eligible for income support. Their average income in 1986 was only about 87% of the Ontario average income. The unemployment rate for visible minorities was 7.6% compared to 6.8% for the overall population.

In my 15 years in the Legislature I have participated in the battle led by the New Democrats to reach the goal of equal pay for work of equal value, but I must say the rate of progress resembles that of a glacier under the Progressive Conservative Party and the present Liberal government. I introduced my own pay equity bill eight years ago in the Legislature when I was the women’s critic. It did not pass.

I have worked with the Equal Pay Coalition which led the battle across the province. It was made up of trade unions, women’s groups and a wide cross-section of groups working for fairness for the groups which are shut out of the employment market. Without their concerted efforts we would never have forced the government to introduce Bill 154, requiring pay equity in both the public and private sectors, in November 1986.

But the bill does not go far enough. It is greatly flawed. It does not cover one million women, half of all the working women in Ontario. They are dealt out because it only applies where a comparison can be found with male workers in the same field. Among those million women are many who need pay equity the most, visible minority women and women in traditionally female jobs.

The member for York South’s bill goes far beyond the coverage of the Pay Equity Act for these women. It also covers the other excluded groups, like the disabled, native people and minorities, which are discriminated against because of colour or ethnic prejudice. His bill addresses the barriers to employment equity which all these groups face. His bill is concerned about the provision of affordable child care for workers. It is concerned about the provision of adequate training for workers and the unemployed. It is concerned about affirmative action and an educational program to combat discrimination. It is concerned about fairness in promotions.

The member for York South’s legislation also provides a model for achieving employment equity through the development and implementation of plans for each workplace, drawn up through collective bargaining or joint labour-management working groups. The Minister of Labour’s proposed amendments to the Pay Equity Act do not go beyond some tinkering with the coverage of the act as it affects women. It does not cover any extension to the groups covered by Bill 172.

The member for York South’s bill will provide all women and all groups in undervalued jobs in both the public and private sectors with mechanisms to gain pay equity adjustments. It will knock down the barriers to full equality of opportunity in this province. All members of the House who believe in fairness to all sectors of our multicultural society must support this bill.

Mr Velshi: I am pleased to participate in this debate today. I am also pleased to be stating that I am supporting the intent of Bill 172 and I will be voting in favour of it, the bill that was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition.

Employment equity can be described as a comprehensive process adopted to ensure equitable representation of designated groups throughout the workplace and to remedy and prevent the effects of intentional and systemic discrimination. Over the years the Liberal government of Ontario and governments before that have introduced legislation which I would term social conscience legislation, the sole purpose of which was to protect those groups that are disadvantaged or needy.

Some examples of these are the creation of the Ontario native affairs directorate, which is involved in the policy of native land claim settlements and now talking about internal government for them; the Ontario women’s directorate, which resulted in pay equity legislation; the Office for Disabled Persons and the Office for Senior Citizens’ Affairs, both of which look after the specific needs of these two groups; the Ministry of Citizenship, which looks after the refugees and new immigrants and their settlement process in this province; and the Office of Francophone Affairs and the directorate, which resulted in Bill 8, the French Language Services Act.

While these secretariats have served an excellent purpose, they are rather narrow in scope. They have not been able to correct the very serious problem of employment equity. It is also obvious that voluntary employment equity will not be successful. It will have to be legislated and enforced. Some people will say this is discrimination in reverse.

To those who refuse to recognize that it is not discrimination in reverse, that it is just an effort to correct an imbalance that has been created over the last 50 or 100 years, we have to recognize that a major problem exists and it has to be corrected, and corrected now. We have already seen a very large group of people who are losing hope because long before they graduate from school they have reached the end of the line, before even entering the workforce. We see the resulting frustration in the forms of despondency, youth crime, alcoholism, family violence and even suicide.

However, I feel that the introduction of employment equity requires thorough planning. This bill, with all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, and I know that he is very sincere about this bill and what the intent of it is, is going a bit too fast. I am aware that the proper bill is in the legislative process right now and we ourselves are pushing for it and hope that it will be introduced as a bill in this House this year. The Leader of the Opposition himself said that the purpose of this bill would be to put pressure on the cabinet.

I think he is perfectly correct in that, and we too are putting pressure. We expect this proper bill to be presented to us hopefully this year. I will be supporting it now and I will be supporting it then also.

I also support the idea of having proper hearings across the province. I think the input from all people -- industry, trade unions, everyone -- is essential to this process, because without that we will not have a bill that will be acceptable to the people of Ontario. I therefore suggest that while I support the intent of this bill and am going to vote for it, I do still feel that a little more research needs to be taken on this matter. I believe that the process is in place now and I believe that very shortly we will be seeing it. I will be supporting that too, and I expect that everyone in this House will be supporting it when it comes.

I must congratulate the Leader of the Opposition. This is part of the process that I call the social conscience of this House. While he is talking about equity, I come from a different angle. I talk about equity and the very survival of my group; and I regard all the groups -- the women, the francophones, the natives, the disabled and the visible minorities -- as all part of the same group. It is important that we do proceed with this.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Maybe it is time that somebody took the gloves off here. I cannot stand this phoney debate that is going on, as if everybody is in favour of the principle of this bill. What garbage! The principle of this bill is not only that there shall be employment equity; it is that there will be targets. We know that people on this side are opposed to targets and yet they are voting for the principle of the bill. The government members get up, two of whom I suppose have had their own frustration over the last number of years, both of whom are good advocates for employment equity but who know that their government has done nothing at all.

Talk about a bill coming out this year. I happen to know that the working committee to deal with this has not even been established, the legal counsel for this has not even been appointed yet, and you are telling me that you are far advanced? You have not moved on that basic agreement that you made with us in 1985, that we would have employment equity legislation. Here we are five years later and you have got the nerve to get up and say you are in favour of the principle of this bill. Garbage! All you are trying to do is make this bill go --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Address the Speaker, please.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I am talking to the whole House, through you, Mr Speaker. I am not looking at any one of the culprits over there. You want this to go. You pretend this is going to be part of public discourse now. What you want it to do is to disappear because we are all in favour of employment equity.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Address the Speaker, please.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I am addressing you, sir, through the corner of my eye. I have to say to you, Mr Speaker, that I am offended by what is going on here. At least somebody should have the guts to get up and say where you stand. To those of you who say that this bill moves too fast, how long should the disabled have to wait to get equity in this province? How long should visible minorities in this province have to wait? I tell you they have waited damned well long enough. To say that one year is too long is garbage, and you are just masking the fact that you oppose the very principles that are involved in this bill. Why none of you has had the courage to get up and say so, I do not know.

Mr Speaker, I am not speaking to any one member. I am not addressing my remarks to any one member and I can look where I wish in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: The standing orders say to address the Speaker. If you want to refer to the members, refer to them as “they,” not “you.”

Mr R. F. Johnston: Mr Speaker, this is garbage and you are trying to interfere with me at this point. I am not talking to any individual member; I am talking to the entire House and you can respect that as being through you.

The Deputy Speaker: Not through me; address the Speaker.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Mr Speaker, I do not know why you are trying to interfere with my rights in this House, but I would respectfully ask you to stop this. I am angry and I am speaking to the general House.

Mr Pouliot: He’s right. That’s about five times, sir. You’ve done it to me, you’ve done it to the leader and everybody else.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Pouliot: Order or not, that’s the way it is.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Mr Speaker, for the last number of years I have been the women’s critic, I have been the critic for the disabled in the past, I have been the critic for Skills Development and am still, I have dealt with poverty in this House over the last 11 years; and I am frankly outraged that anybody would get up and try to smother this bill, as is being done now, with nicety and acquiescence rather than by debating the important principles that are involved in this bill in terms of targeting, in terms of deadlines and in terms of involving the union movement in the decisions that should be here.

If I cannot be angry about that and in some way speak to the general House without being interfered with by the Speaker, I would think that at this stage I should have that right to do so.

I am delighted by the process that my leader has gone through to bring this bill to this stage, and why the government with all its minions has not been able to do the same thing, I do not know. I think it should be an important symbol to all those who are watching and listening to this debate today that this is the leader of the New Democratic Party’s bill. That is the importance that we give to this. We did not give this to the critic for Citizenship to present. We did not give this to the critic for Labour.

We said the leader will come forward with this because this principle is vital to equity in this province. We are not going to say that you are going to be able to submerge this principle and continue with another five years of inaction that we have seen from the Liberal government, or stated opposition to the very principles in this bill by leading members of the Conservative Party in this province and make this disappear. This is an important issue which we will be pursuing.

The member for Carleton made an excellent point. I have little doubt that the two-faced nature of the Liberal government in this business is going to be showing itself by a vote in favour of this and then moving it to committee of the whole House, and as we all know who have had bills moved to committee of the whole, that means to Never Never Land, never to go any further. It is no different than if you all stood up and opposed the darned thing right now and had the honesty to do so.

I would much rather see the members on the other side get up and defeat this bill now -- understanding where they stand on the process, understanding where they stand in terms of the principles involved in this bill, because they have shown over the last five years where they stand on this bill -- than to get up and pretend you are in favour of it, hoping it will not be an election issue, hoping it will not be the major equity issue that we need to deal with in the next little while.

Well, let me tell you, you are not going to get away with it, because as we are showing by the fact that it is the leader who has brought forward this bill, this is an important bill to the NDP and we will be pushing this principle so hard you will not be able to hide behind your smiles of acquiescence any longer.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to wind up?

Mr B. Rae: First of all, I want to thank my colleagues for their support in this debate. I would like as well to say that I expect and would ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development and not simply be sent to committee of the whole, but that it be a bill which will be taken seriously by the government.

I can say that I have been -- not surprised by the debate because indeed when there are matters that are controversial -- let me say to the members of all sides that this is not an easy bill; implementation of employment equity is not an easy thing to do. It has taken us a considerable length of time to introduce this bill because of the number of interests that had to be reconciled. But what I find so typical of the Liberal Party in this instance is that the Liberal Party would fail to admit or recognize that it has in fact put this issue far on the back burner of its policies.

We know in terms of discussions we have had that this bill is nowhere in terms of cabinet priorities. We know that this bill is nowhere in terms of actual legislation about to be introduced. That is why we have had to go the route of introducing a private member’s bill. I would ask, in conclusion, that the government at least have the decency to refer this matter to the standing committee on resources development where it can be discussed and taken seriously, where it can be seen as a priority, rather than forced into the limbo land of the committee of the whole whence it shall never return.

I think we are entitled to that, the disabled community is entitled to that, the visible minority community is entitled to that and women are entitled to that. That is the very least the Liberal Party can do.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Callahan moved second reading of Bill 173,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

The Deputy Speaker: According to the standing orders, the member has 10 minutes to make his presentation, but before the member starts, I want to take 30 seconds. The standing orders call for all members to respect them, including the one where they address the Speaker. I have interpreted that addressing the Speaker means if members want to refer to other members, they refer to them, they, he or she.

I think there is a strong reason for that and I do not want to cut the rights or interfere with any members addressing themselves, but this will apply to all members regardless of who they are and what party they belong to. That is the precedent that is elsewhere in Ottawa and other legislatures, and I will make that be respected here at the Legislative Assembly.

Mr Callahan: I rise in regard to Bill 173, which I think requires a bit of explanation as to what it in fact does. In 1978 the Mental Health Act underwent major revisions. Certain revisions were made but did not come into force until 1984, and they dealt specifically with the question of treatment of involuntary patients in hospitals. Subsequently, in an effort to bring the Mental Health Act into line with the Charter of Rights, Bill 7 made further amendments. Those amendments literally provided that an involuntary patient, competent or incompetent, could not be required to take treatment.

The minister of the day at that time considered that to be very dangerous and subsequently Bill 190 was enacted which provided for review boards to be applied to to make an order on certain specific evidence, as set out in the act, to allow medication to be ordered. These orders themselves could be appealed to a district court judge.

The bill that is before members does two things, and they are quite minimal. The first one is to require that the appeal be heard within 30 days after it was perfected. The reason for that was that unless the judge appealed to made an order that medication was to be continued -- and I understand this very infrequently happened -- the person affected by that order in fact remained in custody, as it were, in a hospital as an involuntary patient and received no treatment.

The purpose of getting it on quickly is that in the event that even if an interim order is made under the second part of my amendment and it fails, at least the person is not kept in custody for periods that were reported to be a minimum of three months and perhaps beyond that. The Globe and Mail had an

article castigating the delays, particularly in urbanized areas where there is a large backlog of cases in the district court.

Having said that, that is basically what the bill does, but it is involved in a far larger issue. The question of schizophrenics and the fact that they are episodically sick, as opposed to being chronically ill, has created grave difficulties under the Mental Health Act. These people normally require emergency treatment, quick treatment, quick access to the hospital, quick access to medication, and because of the provisions of the Mental Health Act that presently exist, grave difficulty is created by this because there are certain tests that have to be reached. You have to establish that there is an imminent danger or a serious threat to themselves or to others.

Very often the only person who knows that the schizophrenic is falling from the period of normalcy he may have while taking his medication is the loved one. The loved one comes and tries to seek treatment and cannot convince the people who have the power to order an involuntary admission. They may come there with their loved one who is prepared to make a voluntary admission, and when they get there, the patient decides he does not want to do that.

It is the very nature of the illness of schizophrenia that people either deny they have a problem or there are side-effects from taking the very medication that helps them. Along with, I suppose, their paranoia -- they feel that they are being poisoned or badly done by -- the net result is that they may come as a voluntary patient and they may decide when they get there that they do not want to go into hospital or they may go into hospital and decide they want to leave without receiving any medication.

There has to be provision in the law that protects these people, to differentiate schizophrenics from people with other mental illnesses. It seems to be a tremendous tragedy that where there is some relief through medication, loved ones have to watch their children, or they may be adults at this time, reach a stage of committing suicide, of injuring other people, of winding up in the criminal courts, because there is not an effective way of ensuring that they take medication.

Surely a society that tries to protect the rights of individuals, which certainly is justified, should also look at the question of what we are doing to these people. What are we doing by denying them a law or a procedure whereby loved ones can ensure that they are going to be treated properly?

The other difficulty, I suppose, with schizophrenia is that a person might be considered to be incompetent and may suddenly no longer be incompetent because of the use of treatment, in which case it creates a disaster in terms of being able to be treated under the Mental Health Act.

The considerations that have been given in this regard were to protect people with mental illnesses that were chronic. We deinstitutionalized people because we considered that to be humane, and I think every member of this Legislature would agree that that continues to be the order of the day. But when we are dealing with schizophrenics who are episodic in their illness and can in fact be assisted and are able to lead in most cases a normal life, and we set up roadblocks or we create legislation in such a way that they are not able to get access to that help, then I suggest we really do them no favours.

Returning to my bill, if we are looking at the civil liberties -- and I think we have to look at the civil liberties of people, particularly people who are mentally ill -- if we pass the provision requiring a 30-day period after perfection of the appeal to be brought into place, if we pass the provision dealing with interim application to a judge in order to persuade a judge that medication be allowed, then in fact what we do is we save these people from a period of being really incarcerated with absolutely no treatment at all. We get out of the warehousing, which is what we originally intended by the social policy that was thought of when institutions were closed in the past.

I think as well that the major objective -- I am quite up front that although this bill deals with minor items, I would like to see this matter get before a committee to give the loved ones of those people who are suffering from the illness of schizophrenia an opportunity to tell us as legislators just how those people differ from those who are chronically ill with a mental illness.

I remember on the Bill 7 hearings back in 1986, there were people who had attended those hearings. I can remember talking to mothers who did not get an opportunity to speak and were really outraged and felt a sense of loss in that they were not able to say something about their particular situation.

I know in my practice over the years in the courts that I found people who were being brought before the courts on criminal charges who were really sick people, who were people who were sick but could have had their illness controlled and would not have found themselves in this predicament.

Unfortunately, while many judges said, “Why are you here? You should be in a hospital receiving treatment,” and I think that is true, I would be willing to bet that if you went through our correctional institutions and our penitentiaries, you would find people who are there not because they are criminally oriented but because they are people who are ill and require treatment. If the treatment is available, why not provide the mechanism whereby they can receive it?

I suggest as well that parents should not have to wait until their children jump off the Gardiner Expressway or commit suicide or harm the parents themselves. As a civilized society, we should make certain that our laws are clear enough that we are able to provide the mechanisms whereby emergency treatment can be provided to these people. Through that emergency treatment these people can continue to live as normal a life as possible and not be plagued by the factor of having to reach the stage of the final act of being a threat to themselves or someone else before they qualify for the benefits that are provided by the law.

I urge members to consider the amendments and to recognize that they are in fact minimal. They are an attempt to rectify what is happening now in terms of waiting for appeals, the warehousing of patients. But at the same time I think it is incumbent upon this Legislature to give to the parents of this province an opportunity to have their say and perhaps to give us ideas on how we can deal with schizophrenics.

In addition to that and finally, I would say that the money that is being spent on investigating a cure for schizophrenia is peanuts. I think this has to become a heightened element so that the public sector and the private sector will contribute the kind of money that they do to other illnesses, which are equally as devastating as this. But this really fractures a family. It takes people who are good people and puts them on the streets to roam the streets aimlessly.

Those are my comments in opening, and I will relinquish the floor to my colleagues.

Mr Reville: I have many things in life. Some of them are happy and some of them are sad. One of the things I have that is sad is a major mental illness. I acquired a diagnosis in 1965. It has been amended a number of times since and I have lived under the tender mercies of the Mental Health Act since 1965 in its different versions. Between 1965 and 1967 I was an involuntary patient in an Ontario provincial psychiatric hospital, during which time I was confined for 18 months. So you will understand, Mr Speaker, why my hair stands straight up on end when I hear the words Mental Health Amendment Act.

As the member for Brampton South has recited, this Legislature during the 33rd Parliament entertained the Mental Health Act on a number of occasions, partly in respect of Bill 7, later in respect of Bill 190, in between in some best unremembered bills that most reflected government confusion about the issues in this connection. My own Bill 50, the Community Mental Health Services Act, received second reading support in the Legislature on 17 December 1987 and has been mothballed by the government since that time.

My legal advisers have assured me that Bill 173 is benign, and I will not be opposing it. I am, however, aware of the views of the member for Brampton South. I know they are carefully held views and I do not dispute his right to hold the views. He takes a best-interests approach to this situation, and his views are at variance with mine. I take a rights approach, and that is why I was pleased with the amendments that flowed from the discussions in 1986 and 1987.

The real agenda here, as the member for Brampton South readily acknowledges, is to create a forum for a discussion about the tension between best interests on the one hand and rights on the other. It is a legitimate agenda. I want him to know, however, that just as he will marshal the forces that are interested in the best-interests position, so too will I marshal the forces of those who represent the rights position. He will know that because the rights forces are persuasive and committed, as are the best-interests forces, he is in for a major fight.

I believe the issues go to the heart of what we believe about civil rights, and clearly there will be charter challenges if the balances are shifted in any measurable way. It is not easy to discover what that proper balance is, because it is a balance between societal interest in the health and safety of its citizens on the one hand and the right of an individual to be the captain of his or her own fate on the other.

I do want to point out, though, that to rely on what we call treatment is to court both disappointment and disillusionment. Treatment in Ontario and indeed in most of the western world consists primarily of hospitalization and drugs. Neither the hospitalization nor the drugs do anything to alleviate the social, economic and political deficits that people in mental distress carry. In fact, the treatment often exacerbates those deficits; it makes them more profound.

The member speaks about schizophrenia as though that label alone explains all you need to know, and that is not the case. Even people on whose behalf the member for Brampton South is arguing, primarily the people who are the families and friends of those who are labelled schizophrenic, will acknowledge that their loved ones are so different one from the other that what is called schizophrenia must be many, many different things.

As difficult as it is for us as legislators to accept, because in fact we all come to our task trying to design and implement a better kind of society, we cannot always prevent every human tragedy. We could shrink-wrap everybody at risk. If we did that, we would be taking on an extraordinary financial liability, and we might accept that if we thought it was going to be efficacious.

What worries me is that there is a great human cost to shrink-wrapping people who are at risk. It is very hard for me to accept the prevention of one kind of tragedy by imposing another kind of tragedy, forcing people into a kind of nether world where they will be straitjacketed with chemicals and where they will experience the great despair of alienation.

It is my hope that this debate will go forward so that we can struggle with the issues. I know what side I am on. I know that if we can convince this government to proceed faithfully to implement the recommendations of the Graham report, which relate to a range of least-restrictive services that will be provided in the community, we will in fact alleviate the distress that many people currently experience. It is in that direction I feel most optimistic about reducing human tragedy, rather than the direction that the member for Brampton South believes is the appropriate way to go.

Mr Sterling: I would like to just speak very briefly on the bill. I have had an opportunity to look at the bill and quite frankly do not see that it changes to a very great degree the procedures that are in place. Perhaps it adds some comfort to the procedure.

The only question that I would have of the presenter of the bill is whether or not an imposition of a time frame on a court has precedent and what happens if in fact that time frame is not met. Does it then act in favour of the appellant or the respondent, and therefore can the procedure be used in order to avoid going to the hearing by either party?

I believe my colleague the member for London North is going to conclude our comments from our caucus at this time.

The Speaker: Is there agreement? There is agreement.

Mrs Cunningham: The real purpose here is efficiency so that we may in fact leave some time for some of the Liberal members to speak in support of their colleague’s legislation this morning.

I would like to compliment the member for his introduction of this amendment this morning. I know that the member for Brampton South has always been a person who has been most interested in the treatment, the cure and the quality of life for many special citizens in the province of Ontario, those who suffer with the disease of schizophrenia.

Right now, no one does in fact have the answers with regard to the quality of life, with regard to support systems, with regard to medication, programs and treatment, but anything we can do to assist these people with an improved quality of life, with improved health, and just as important, to assist their families and friends, is certainly in the best interest of the public of Ontario and is certainly the responsibility of this Legislative Assembly.

Although with Bill 173 we are looking at a very small change in an amendment to the Mental Health Act, I should say that what it really means to me and to others who are following improvements is that if an in-hospital patient is deemed incompetent by the hospital review board but that person wants to end his or her treatment, it must go to the district court. That is the way things are right now.

Sometimes that takes a very long period of time. For the individual, if one is talking about human rights, about what is right for him, many of us from time to time are subjected to a very inefficient court system. Anything that we can do legislatively to make it better for the person involved, we must do that. This amendment would ensure that the appeal by the hospital review board takes only 30 days.

We have been told by solicitors, as we have inquired as to the practicality of this amendment, that in fact that will be a very difficult time period for them. Do you know what I say? I say, tough. People’s lives are at stake.

Sometimes we sit around because it has been the practice to sit around when it comes to moving things through our courts. Other times we sit around because the kinds of people we are representing or dealing with are not the kinds of people who can speak or lobby for themselves, and many families are simply worn out by the process.

So if we have a member who says it is going to take 30 days, I say, good for him and I hope that everybody in this House will be supporting this legislation. Sometimes in life there needs to be a time frame, and this one is probably even too long at that.

I would also say that we know that we already have a clause, and this is the argument from the other side, that states that the appeal must go through as quickly as possible, and for those of us who live with those words from day to day, we know it does not mean a darned thing.

I just hope that this is one small improvement, but I think the great reward of this kind of legislation coming forth and being referred to committee is that we will once again have a chance to revisit publicly the Mental Health Act and we will have an opportunity to hear from professionals as to improvements that they could recommend. Perhaps out of those kinds of discussions we may even have opportunities to take a look at improved programs for our very special citizens who are suffering from schizophrenia, and I would say that that is long overdue.

In programs that are supported by the government of the province of Ontario and by communities and by private groups, we would commend the individuals who I call our front-line workers as they deal with rather significant challenges in society. Anything we can do separate from legislation is not only our responsibility, but it is also our personal hope that we are able to make those kinds of contributions. So I am looking forward to the kinds of discussions that can take place in that committee.

As an elected member of this assembly, there is not a week that goes by that I do not have a member of a family or a person who is suffering from this terrible illness come to my constituency office or phone me. Over a period of a month I would easily discuss with four or five different families or friends challenges when it comes to treatment, challenges when it comes to changing legislation and challenges when it comes to providing a quality of life.

In the last few weeks in this Legislative Assembly we have talked, even this morning we talked about employment equity, which may not mean a lot when it comes to this piece of legislation, but these people are in their own ways disabled and there are many ways that we should be reaching out to assist them.

So I commend the member for Brampton South for his initiative. I understand that his colleagues wish to present their statements on the record of this Legislative Assembly, so our party will not take further opportunity to speak to this bill, but I do hope that we will have that opportunity once again at the appropriate committee level where all of us can revisit our responsibilities as legislators and our responsibilities as citizens around the quality of life for people who suffer from mental illness in the province of Ontario and do whatever we can to improve it by passing this amendment and by supporting programs in this Legislative Assembly.

Mr Dietsch: It is with pleasure that I rise today in order that I may voice my support for the amendments to the Mental Health Act contained in Bill 173, brought forward by my colleague the member for Brampton South.

First of all, I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate some of the statistics about schizophrenia to help shed some light upon the need for this bill in attempting to address in what I consider a right direction.

Experts estimate that about one in every 100 people is schizophrenic, making the disease by far the most common type of mental illness. Statistics also show that 20% of schizophrenics commit suicide. I know that many members of this House can reflect upon the horror stories that have taken presence in the press and brought to our attention these kinds of issues. But it also notes that about three quarters of them can respond to treatment.

At present we know that there is no known cure that cures ad infinitum, but we know that there is medication that can arrest some of the symptoms of schizophrenia. Dr Brian Hoffman, chairman of the Ontario Medical Association special committee on mental health, was quoted as saying, “The nature of schizophrenia is that it is a slow, insidious thing, that many victims appear normal.”

I cannot help but reflect upon some of the things that are taking place this week. This week is National Access Awareness Week, and the theme is the reflection upon the invisible disabilities. I think it is appropriate that the member for Brampton South should bring his bill before this Legislature this morning and take some of the steps in what I consider to be the right direction on the Mental Health Act.

We know that it is not going to be the end-all, be-all solution, but it is certainly a step which I consider to be a very forward-thinking step for all professionals concerned about deciding whether the patient should be treated against his will, while thousands of families caring for relatives with this disease worry and watch helplessly as the patients’ conditions deteriorate.

Of all the things that I, as a member of this Legislature, come to wrestle with, it is those very difficult times when individuals come before me in my constituency office talking about their families in a very caring, revealing way that puts me, as a member of the Ontario Legislature, in a very helpless light. Quite frankly, I find it very difficult to try to address those feelings of uncomfortable times that these individual constituents feel and yet reflect on what I consider a very meaningful contribution to the way they are feeling.

Often, as my colleague so correctly pointed out, schizophrenics are taken into care in facilities, they are given medication, they appear competent at the hearing and are thus released. Some will continue to take their medication and live what is near to being as normal a life as possible, considering their afflictions, but some will not take their medication and, once back out on the streets, they will once again begin to suffer with the hallucinations and the delusions that can prevent them from recognizing their own particular need for help.

As June Conway Beeby, the executive director of Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics, remarks, without treatment, schizophrenics’ lives are filled with psychotic suffering and some are even killing themselves, urged on by their own voices.

I am aware that this requires a delicate balance. On one hand we have the rights of the patients, and on the other hand we have to keep individuals from harming themselves. Put simply, in my opinion, allowing a judge to order continued treatment for schizophrenics pending an appeal from the finding that he or she is not competent and in need of treatment is an encouraging step forward in the right direction. Furthermore, in the quest to protect the individual rights of these patients, the question of treatment is subject to a judge’s order and therefore the safeguards are over their rights.

The time limit under which a hearing should be held is designed to speed up a process. I feel that anything we can do that can speed up a process of government we should darn well be doing. More particularly, anything that we can do that can speed up a process where individuals can get help when they do not recognize particularly that they need help I think is a more important step in what I consider certainly the right direction.

Over the past few years, I have met with, as I have said, a number of my own constituents who are themselves concerned family members trying to assist their loved ones who suffer from schizophrenia. As one constituent so poignantly stated in her correspondence to me:

“Yes, patients have rights too, but too much emphasis is placed on the rights of the patients instead of the patient to live. And as these patients do not always have the mental capacity to make these decisions for themselves, it is up to society to take the responsibility and not leave them adrift.”

I ask members of this House to reflect upon these words, written by someone who has lived through this experience.

With that in mind, I encourage members of this House to support this bill. I would respectfully leave the balance of time for some of my other colleagues.

Ms Oddie Munro: I am very pleased to be able to join in what I consider to be a very constructive and empathic discussion on the bill put forward by my colleague the member for Brampton South, an amendment to the Mental Health Act, Bill 173.

The bill makes a special case for schizophrenics and schizophrenia in how we deal with judgements of mental competence, how we deal with the necessity for provision of medical and other treatments and how we assist citizens of this province in continuing to deal with their disease and work towards competency and independence and quality of life, so I think it is a very important amendment.

I would like to say that it also puts a good deal of faith in the judiciary and in the ability of the judiciary to make sympathetic orders for treatment which will take into account all of the environment and all of the medical advocacy evidence which surrounds that in making that. If there is any way too in which we are able to in a sense educate the courts, if I might say that, this seems to be one of those kinds of amendments, so I support it from that point of view. I would think that the families and indeed the patients themselves would look to the judiciary as the body that would be able to balance both patient rights and civil rights and protection of society.

I thought it was very instructive to listen to the member for Brampton South go through some of the bills which have in fact amended the Mental Health Act and in particular Bill 190, which was passed in June 1987, giving review boards the authority to authorize treatment, but only for involuntary patients deemed mentally incompetent to make treatment decisions whose substitute has refused consent. Within the safeguards for patient rights in that bill was one which is directly relevant to the amendment we have before us, and that was that treatment may not proceed while a board decision is under appeal by the patient unless a court rules otherwise.

The whole question of judging and dealing with competency, and of course the flipside, incompetency, is fraught with a lot of complicated decisions, research evidence and of course the ability of the community and hospitals to try to do what is best for them and for the patient and families. Any designation of mental competency of course is a judgement against an individual and has far-reaching implications for both involuntary and voluntary patients.

In fact, one of the problems with the amendment that was put forward and then taken out of the last set of amendments to the Mental Health Act was the concern by interest groups that the power to determine competence is absolutely critical and that standards must be developed to make a determination.

I think we are all aware that the Weisstub inquiry, which was announced in April 1988 with a mandate to recommend standards for determining competency under the Mental Health Act, has been meeting, and I believe that report is before the minister. One of the concerns with the various groups, including the Friends of Schizophrenics, is that the mandate of that committee has moved to an overall investigation and evaluation with recommendations on mental competence in a wide variety of situations and that it may be the case that schizophrenics as a special case are not paid the attention they deserve.

I am sure, however, in looking through the brief that was submitted to the Weisstub inquiry by the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics. that this will be taken into account.

I would like to quote from some of the statements made by the members of the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics as they made their submission. I think it is worth while in this debate to just take a look at

definitions of schizophrenia. We have already listened to some of the statistical evidence of the reality of schizophrenia, but it is a disorder of the brain and it is not simply a measure, and cannot be judged to be a measure, on an individual that he is mentally incompetent. In fact, schizophrenia is mainly an episodic disease and in many instances -- I would like to think in most instances -- schizophrenics can lead normal lives both with and without medication, and certainly with the support of caring individuals in the community and in the hospitals.

However, it is the case that sometimes schizophrenics, even with medication, will go into another one of their psychotic episodes, and it is at that point that we have to be able to make a judgement on the side of the safety and care of the patient. The brief by the Friends of Schizophrenics goes into details of hospitalization and mentions again the fact that the member for Brampton South has picked up; that is, the paradox that happens when schizophrenics who are responding to treatment in hospitals are released to the community and then become victims, often alienated from families and friends.

Certainly some of those victims are people who we see sleeping in the neighbourhood of railway stations and other places where people are simply afraid to deal with their presenting behaviours.

When we take a look at community treatment of schizophrenics, I think it is absolutely important that we realize that certainly the law is part of how we define community and health treatment. In the case of this amendment, it makes a good deal of sense here for it to look to the judiciary to be able to give a treatment decision for an individual who is in need of that, so I would support the amendment from that point of view.

I know that some members of the Legislature talked about the question of the amendments to the Mental Health Act on the basis of individual rights, and I know that those arguments will go on. I am certainly very cognizant of them, but I would like to say that sometimes, as taken from the report from the Friends of Schizophrenics, they have said that it seems a paradox when we deny someone his physical liberty on the ground of mental illness and then delay treatment of the illness on libertarian grounds.

I hope that in many ways, after the judiciary is able to take a look at the precedence of its action on treatment notices on citizens, we will take this as being a more normal procedure and that in fact more fully fleshed-out and tougher amendments will come into the Mental Health Act. I understand that is what the minister is taking a look at.

Mr Wildman: I want to comment briefly on the amendment. I commend the member for bringing the matter forward before the House. This is a very difficult area.

I have had some constituents who are suffering from schizophrenic disorders, as I am sure most members of the House have had, and it is a very difficult area. Obviously for the family, it is difficult. They care for their family member but oftentimes we find that the individual, for whatever reasons, refuses to take the medication that is prescribed and as a result can suffer relapse or find himself or herself in a very difficult situation which may in fact be dangerous for him or her or for members of the family or neighbours.

The question is, how do you deal with this in a free society? How do we ensure that an individual is not forced into treatment that he does not wish to have, and how do we ensure that the individual is protected and that the members of the family are protected? It is a very difficult area.

I believe there should be some time limits on assessment. I believe, at the same time, we cannot have a situation where an individual is forced to take treatment when he or she believes it is not in his or her best interests, unless it can indeed be shown that the individual is dangerous to himself or herself or to others.

I commend the member for bringing the matter forward. It is a very difficult area. I hope that the debate in the House will help not only to suggest ways that we might deal with it but to highlight the problems faced by people suffering from mental disorders and the people who care for them.

The Speaker: Any other members wishing to participate? That completes the allotted time, other than the two minutes in response for the member for Brampton South.

Mr Callahan: I think I have five. I think my colleagues left me five, plus the two.

The Speaker: Order. I have had a shake of the head, no.

Mr Wildman: No what?

The Speaker: There are just your two minutes left. It says five but --

Mr Wildman: Well, Mr Speaker, there are five New Democratic minutes left, and I think if the member wants to use them, we would be happy to let him.

The Speaker: There are five minutes here and seven minutes there, but I am just upholding the standing orders that the members in general have put before the House and approved.

Mr Pouliot: We would be happy to acquiesce our five minutes in favour of the member for Brampton South.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr Callahan: I would like to thank my colleagues for speaking on this issue and I appreciate their support. I particularly was struck by the member for Riverdale and his sort of stark admission. I had not heard what he said before, but I commend him. He has great courage in doing that. I invite the people who he may wish to bring to a committee in terms of the rights of individuals, because I think that is the only way we will get a real answer to this issue.

That is probably why the bill that I brought did not try to address any broader issue, because we really cannot do it in private members’ hour. It really has to be done in committee. It would be my wish -- and I realize this is somewhat tenuous in light of the fact that we are a week away from adjourning for the summer break -- that this matter might be carried over and would eventually get to a committee, because I think it is very important that the parents of those people have their opportunity to raise some of the issues they have already raised in the report from the Friends of Schizophrenics.

They have talked about situations of a schizophrenic’s parent being able to relate an experience to the admitting psychiatrist or to the justice of the peace or to the police officer to demonstrate that his loved one had already tried to commit suicide and he was therefore at greater risk than would be the case if it was a first admission.

It is a very difficult issue, and it is one of balancing the rights of the individual against the rights of those people who love the person, but they have sleepless nights in wondering where he is, what is going to happen to him, and then having to read in the newspaper that he has jumped off a bridge, or he has killed somebody, or he has been put in jail for a very serious crime.

I think we as legislators and society as a whole have an obligation to see that this can be rectified in the best possible way, again without infringing people’s rights. We were able to come to that decision in terms of disallowing totally such procedures as psychosurgery or electric convulsive therapy. Those were considered by all members to be outrageous.

But here we have a very special group, and if we are to help that special group, then we need the advice, the information and the input of the people who are suffering from the mental illness, as well as those people who laterally suffer. I think anybody in this House who has gone through the personal experience with a friend or in the constituency office has seen the anguish these people go through, the fact that they are hanging by a thread, worrying about their loved one and have no way of dealing with it, or very few effective ways to deal with it.

In addition to that, I would like to see the whole issue heightened so that the question of investigation into a cure of this dreaded disease can be found. There have been tremendous breakthroughs in terms of chromosomal locations of this particular aberration, but because of the lack of funding and because it does not have the same sexiness, I guess, as diseases such as heart disease, cancer and so on, it does not get the high profile from either private donations or public donations.

I think it is sad to realize -- members should just think about it: If Dr Salk had had the same problem with polio vaccine and it was not a heightened issue and people did not want to have a cure for it, the dollars would not have been poured into it and we would have run around watching people become totally disabled as a result of getting polio. Surely to God this is as big a deformity of the minds of individuals who, if they could be cured by reason of increased research and also more sympathetic and perhaps more workable rules passed by this Legislature, then in fact we would have saved those individuals from being paralysed in terms of their minds.

I urge all members to really see that this issue is in fact put on a high profile, that it is something where the press will take it and run with it, because the press itself sometimes creates its own issues, and it supports, perhaps, the wrong ones. Here is an opportunity for it to help people, to help those 200,000 or 250,000 Canadians who do not have the full opportunity to live their lives in total serenity, the people who we see wandering the streets of Toronto, who appear to us to be the homeless by design. They are not the homeless by design; that is because of their illness, in many cases.

The people in our prisons are there not because they are criminal people, but because they are sick. I hope this issue will become a high-profile one and perhaps will be carried over to the next session of the Legislature so that it can in fact be reviewed totally in committee.

The Speaker: Those were five minutes allowed you by the official opposition. There are still seven minutes remaining from the Conservative Party. I do not know whether you have any further comments. You still have the two minutes. There is no offer? Fine. I will recognize the member for Brampton South for his final two minutes.

Mr Callahan: I would like to make my final comments by thanking every member of this House who spoke and those who are going to support this bill. It is a difficult one. I remember when I was talking about preparing this bill and looking for a way to do it.

I was told that by doing it, I would have all sorts of groups that would be concerned in one way or another, either as a result of feeling that their rights were being infringed -- I welcome them before the committee because I think in that way we are going to demonstrate, hopefully to them, that the best safeguard and the best way of securing freedom for these people who are actually trapped in a mental illness that does have some possibility of success, that does have some track record in terms of investigating a cure -- that in fact we can show them that these people can lead productive lives, that we can in fact marshal the public opinion that will call out for contributions from the private sector as well as the public sector to look into a cure for this dreaded disease.

I suppose it is also going to heighten the fact that you may be sitting next to someone in this House, you may be sitting next to someone on a streetcar or in church who may very well have a loved one who has schizophrenia, considering that one out of 100 suffer from this dreaded disease. Those are the silent sufferers, as well as their parents. We have to deal with that.

Again, I cannot say enough that I really want to thank my colleagues. They have approached it, they have expressed their views. I appreciate their views and I look forward to this getting to committee, where we can share the views of the citizens of Ontario and hopefully come up with a solution that will meet the test of the civil liberties people and, as well, address the cares and concerns of those mothers and fathers who lie awake at night wondering where their loved one is, whether he or she is destroying himself or herself or perhaps causing other people grief.

The Speaker: That completes the discussion and debate on ballot items 55 and 56. Our standing orders say that I shall put the questions at 12 of the clock. Do you wish to wait until 12? Yes? I cannot get unanimous consent. Okay, we will wait until 12.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1990

The Speaker: Mr B. Rae has moved second reading of Bill 172.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: That bill will go to committee of the whole House.

Mr B. Rae: I would ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

The Speaker: The standing orders state that it shall go to committee of the whole House unless a majority wishes it to go to a certain standing committee. Usually I ask all those in favour to rise, but it sounds as if there is unanimous consent and agreement.

Agreed to.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on resources development.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The Speaker: Mr Callahan has moved second reading of Bill 173.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: That bill will go to committee of the whole House.

Mr Callahan: I move that it go to the standing committee on social development.

The Speaker: The member has requested that it be sent out to the social development committee. Is there complete agreement?

Agreed to.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on social development.

The House recessed at 1202.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr R. F. Johnston: It should come as no surprise that the deaf community and the hearing-impaired community across the province are extremely disappointed with the half steps or quarter measures that were taken yesterday by the government in response to the review of deaf education, so much so that a group of deaf parents in London have occupied the Premier’s constituency office to state their displeasure about the government’s not having gone further.

It is not just that a lot of the measures were not dealt with in the report; it is also the fact that the government did not even move on the heritage language recognition of American sign language, let alone the recognition in Bill 112 that I presented to this House for American sign language as the language of instruction. As well, the hearing-impaired wanted a few minor concessions to get extra services for children, and have been arguing for some time that the 70-decibel cutoff that is in regulations is unrealistic. Again, there is no mention of a move in that area, so none of the elements of the community involved is happy today.

The minister and the government should know that there is unanimity around two proposed small amendments to Bill 112 which would make the entire hearing-impaired/deaf continuum in the province happy with that bill and it would be prepared to see this go through in very short order. The government could recoup the bad message it has sent out to these people if in fact it would just accept those amendments and bring in the principles of Bill 112 as early as possible.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Villeneuve: The Liberal government still has no clear, long-term plan to assist a faltering agricultural industry. For starters, agriculture’s share of the provincial budget has fallen for the third year in a row, to slightly more than 1% of the entire Ontario budget. Instead of planting a healthy future, as the Federation of Agriculture has envisioned, the Liberals have ensured that they will provide no help to agriculture.

The 1990 budget has only short-term initiatives for agriculture. For instance, $48 million of interest rate relief is a onetime allocation. The Minister of Agriculture and Food could not negotiate an equal amount from the federal government, so he is stalling on the release of both payments until an election is called. That is pretty typical.

With decreasing cash receipts, increasing operating costs and a prime interest rate at near-historic heights, finance and credit issues are of primary importance to farmers. The farm tax rebate program is still in limbo. The Liberal government unilaterally cut $27 million from this program last year without even consulting the farming community. By income-testing and property taxes, the Liberals turned the program into an income subsidy program instead of a tax equity program, which is what it was intended to be and should remain.

This government clearly is not helping Ontario’s agriculture.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Owen: Last year, our Ministry of Skills Development provided seed funding of $100,000 to the Barrie and District Training Council and its partners for the development of the Skills Canada organization in Ontario. Since that time, the Skills Canada organization has been growing at an impressive pace.

The organization is a partnership of business, industry and education committed to encouraging and supporting students in secondary schools and colleges to achieve excellence in technical skills. By April of this year, there were 1,312 Skills Canada student members from 82 high schools and 116 students attending nine community colleges. Fifteen boards of education across the province as well as more than 35 businesses are participating to make Skills Canada a success in Ontario.

Key elements in Skills Canada include adopt-a-shop, apprenticeship programs, employment networking, professional development programs, leadership conferences, technical skills awareness events and skills competitions. Skills competitions provide an opportunity for students to demonstrate the excellence of their technical abilities, pitting their skills against their peers at all levels. Top Canadian achievers compete at the United States Skills Olympics, which are being held this year in Tulsa, Oklahoma 25 June to 1 July.

This is an extremely worthwhile program, one that all members of this House should encourage in their own constituencies.

BUDGET

Mr Allen: Today is Return to Sender Day at Queen’s Park. Services and agencies that deal with the poor in Ontario, and particularly in Toronto, are sending back the budget to the Ontario Treasurer who, as they view it, sold out the poor in his 1990 budget. In four critical areas -- housing, social assistance, child care and minimum wage -- the latest budget has done little or nothing for the more than one million people, including 330,000 children, across Ontario who are forced to live in poverty.

These organizations -- more than two dozen organizations and social agencies -- are today holding a day of protest against that budget from 8 am to 4 pm on the south lawn of the Ontario Legislature. Speakers, performers on the main stage, soup kitchens, food banks, legal services and other services for low-income people have transferred their operations to Queen’s Park for all of one day. The event is a user-friendly shutdown of poverty services by bringing the poor to the doorstep of the Legislature. Organizers are determined to end the silence on poverty and demand that the poor live in dignity.

The day will end with a march by the participants to the office of the Treasurer to present a budget pie and a postcard showing the true priorities of the people of Ontario. I appeal to the Treasurer, to the entire government, to listen and rework all the parts of the budget that touch the poor -- and that is most of it.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

Mrs Marland: Tomorrow marks two important anniversaries for Ontario. On 15 June 1962 the first Ontario Human Rights Code was enacted, and on the same date in 1982 an updated code was established.

When the code was introduced by the Progressive Conservative government of John Robarts, Ontario was the first jurisdiction in Canada to enact a comprehensive human rights code. The original code guaranteed equality on the basis of race, colour, nationality, ancestry and place of origin.

In the 1970s, social pressures resulting from increased immigration made it apparent that amendments to the code were needed. As a result, the Bill Davis government broadened the code’s mandate. The revised Human Rights Code of 1982 guarantees equality on the basis of ancestry, sex, age, marital status, family status, handicap, receipt of public assistance and record of offences.

In Ontario we tend to take human rights for granted, but oppressive regimes still abuse human rights in many areas of the world. Just a few days ago we marked the anniversary of the tragic slaughter of student protesters in Tiananmen Square, and in South Africa, the majority of the population is still disfranchised by reason of skin colour.

On this date, we should reflect on our great fortune to live where human rights are generally respected. We must also consider the cases of human rights abuse which still exist here and do everything possible to ensure that the Human Rights Code governs all conduct in Ontario.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA

Mr Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of the House the recent release of the city of Mississauga’s 1989 annual report.

Mississauga was incorporated as a city only 15 years ago and yet we rate today as one of the country’s largest cities.

In the April publication of Business and Finance in Ontario, the focus was on Mississauga, and it was entitled How to Build a Perfect City. John Fergus, the publisher and editor stated, “The city of Mississauga is a textbook example of the awards accrued when vision and careful planning are the signatures of both the private sector and municipal officials.”

In the annual report, it is estimated that by the year 2001, the city’s population will be 710,000 people. The benefits of the aforementioned vision and careful planning by the city will certainly be seen by residents and businesses alike.

The city has always been a leader in the area of recycling, but with the active participation of the city’s residents, the apartment and condominium recycling program reached 13,000 units recently.

Mississauga also received the 1988-89 Outstanding Municipality Award from the Recycling Council of Ontario, which was awarded for the city’s leadership in recycling and waste management.

I congratulate the city, the mayor and members of council on these initiatives.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Laughren: In the last week or so, I have asked the Minister of Natural Resources two questions. One had to do with the regeneration of our forests and the other had to do with the herbicide spraying in our forests. It seems to me that both are terribly important issues of public policy in the province of Ontario.

On the matter of regeneration, I asked the minister how it would be that E. B. Eddy Forest Products would be short one million seedlings that it wanted to plant and which the ministry would not provide under the forest management agreement. The minister knew absolutely nothing about it. To her credit, she admitted she did not know anything about it, but instead replied with a lot of gobbledegook.

The second question I asked her had to do with herbicide spraying in our forests. I asked the minister, one, what she was doing to reduce the dependence on herbicides and, two, what proportion of the tending that is done in our forests is done by herbicides as opposed to manual tending.

The minister did not know the answer to that either. It seems to me that two of the most important issues in forestry all across Ontario are the degree to which we regenerate the forests we cut and to what extent we depend on spraying of either herbicides or pesticides in order to control the growth of competition for the trees that we want to see growing to maturity. In both cases the minister was found wanting. In both cases the minister did not know the answers and, to my knowledge, has made no attempt to find out the answers.

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr Cousens: I speak today on behalf of the constituents of Markham and as a provincial legislator and one who has empathy and respect for the sincerity and courage shown by Premier Clyde Wells of Newfoundland.

During this critical time in our nationhood, we have seen various degrees of leadership by the participants of the Meech Lake process. Many residents of my community are saying that no one has displayed as much integrity and honesty as the Premier of Newfoundland. His ability to rise above partisan pressures and to articulate intelligently his concerns with not only the accord itself but also the process has earned him the respect of many Canadians.

As a provincial legislator and a proud Canadian, I commend Mr Wells for his dedication to the citizens of Newfoundland and for his love of Canada. I fully support the premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada in their attempt to ratify the constitutional accord.

The people of Ontario also want a voice in national affairs. There is an important lesson to be learned from the Meech Lake process. Why does the Ontario government not open up the Queen’s Park phone lines across the province after 4 pm on Friday and over the weekend to give our citizens the opportunity to react to what the Premier has done, and seek the public’s counsel on what Ontario should do with the amending resolution? The Ontario public cares deeply about our role in Canada’s future; no one should be excluded from this process.

NATURAL GAS SUPPLY

Mr Tatham: Canada is self-sufficient in uranium, gas and electricity, although smaller quantities of the latter two are imported essentially for convenience. About a third of the country’s crude oil requirements is imported, mostly in Quebec and further east. About a fifth of the country’s coal demand is imported.

Natural gas was first discovered in Canada near Niagara Falls in 1794. We have come a long way. Until today, according to Statistics Canada, Canada’s proven and probable natural gas reserves total more than 95 trillion cubic feet.

As well as being a reasonably priced fuel, natural gas is a clean fuel. When natural gas burns, it emits only water vapour and carbon dioxide. Natural gas heating in our homes helps reduce acid rain and air pollution.

Natural gas, as an abundant, clean-burning fuel, should have a promising future. To encourage future natural gas sales, we need pipeline access. I believe we should make sure that Ontario citizens have access to a continuing supply of natural gas. We should also establish a policy to pursue an active campaign to have all municipalities, where possible, connected into a network of natural gas pipelines.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr B. Rae: In the absence of anyone else, I will have to ask my question of the Minister of Community and Social Services.

On the basis of either a family of three working at or around the minimum wage or a family of three receiving social assistance, I wonder whether the minister can explain, when we take housing costs into account, how a family is supposed to be able to eat when the Department of Agriculture has just come up with a very interesting study showing that a family of three living in Toronto needs at least $350 per month for food alone.

I remind the minister that the average rental costs in the city are upwards of $1,400, that a cheap rent would be $1,200 or $1,000, according to the most recent statistics, and that nowhere near minimum wage or social assistance would allow you to provide even for housing.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr B. Rae: Does the minister not understand that people are having to choose between clothing and food and housing in order to get by every month?

Hon Mr Beer: Certainly I think everyone recognizes that food costs, shelter costs, particularly for single parents, those who are at minimum wage or those who are on social assistance, are very difficult. That is why we took the various steps that we did last year to begin to address those issues, to increase the rates for shelter and basic food and clothing and to make other changes with respect to children’s benefits as well.

When we look at the amounts that individuals receive, it is going to vary as well from community to community, but we have had examples, through the social planning council study on the impact of our shelter costs and the impact of the basic rates change, of some positive signs of helping directly families on social assistance.

There is still much that needs to be done, but I think the direction that we are going is the correct one and that we are seeing beneficial changes for those individuals and those families.

Mr B. Rae: Let’s follow this arithmetic, the basic arithmetic of daily life for hundreds of thousands of people in the province. Back in 1975, a person who worked at the minimum wage would have had to work for 50 hours a week in order to be living at the poverty line. At the poverty level in Ontario then, 50 hours a week on the minimum wage could get you up to the poverty line.

Today, a working person would have to work 87 hours a week on the minimum wage in order to get up to the poverty line. That is how bad the gap has become. That is how wide the gap has grown between those who are working, for example, in contracts for collective agreements and those who are having to rely on the minimum wage as the only union they really have.

The Speaker: Your question?

Mr B. Rae: Can the minister tell us why it is the government of Ontario has, as a matter of deliberate policy, allowed the minimum wage to fall so far behind that somebody would have to work nearly 90 hours a week in order to get to the poverty line?

Hon Mr Beer: In answer to the honourable member, it is important to note that there are, in my view, three basic ways that we try to assist those who are on social assistance or at the lower end of the wage scale. Clearly minimum wage is one, the second is to improve social assistance benefits and the third one is in relation to the whole question of taxes for those at the lower end of the income scale.

On the social assistance side, we have made some great progress in the last year. The Treasurer announced further cuts on the income tax side, and at that point he indicated that we would be discussing the issue of minimum wage and that there would be a statement later in the session.

When we look at the minimum wage, clearly that is an area where we recognize there is importance, and we will be taking steps with respect to that in due course.

Mr B. Rae: The people who are outside have asked me to present to the Premier a copy of the budget, and it has “Return to Sender” on it. Since the Premier is not here, I would ask that the minister receive the budget because it does so much for people who are well off, so much for corporations, a $140 million tax write-off for corporations in addition to the billions in taxes they now refuse to pay or do not have to pay because of the way the system operates.

I would like to ask the minister again this simple question on the question of the minimum wage: Can he tell us why in the budget, for example, corporations got a tax write-off of $141 million? That was upfront money. They did not have to wait around for that. But in fact working people are now being told, “You are going to have to wait at the back of the line,” when we know they are going to have to work 90 hours a week in order to get up to the poverty line in the province.

Hon Mr Beer: I think what I would like to remind the honourable member is that we started the most innovative reform of social assistance in this province last year, with changes in the basic rates, with changes such as the support to employment program that has seen a clear increase in the number of people on social assistance with greater earnings than ever before. We can do that month over month over the last year.

I also indicated clearly to the honourable member, as was indicated at the time of the budget, that the government would be addressing the issue of the minimum wage. The Minister of Labour has been carrying on discussions about that and we will be making a move on that. We quite recognize the importance of the minimum wage as part of the overall package of initiatives that the government can take to help both those on social assistance and those who are at the lower end of the income scale.

I think that when you look at what we have been able to do over the last number of years and compare it with any other jurisdiction in North America, what we have done is progressive and moving definitely in the right direction to help those at the lower end of the income scale.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Citizenship. The minister will no doubt be aware that in his absence today, and indeed in the absence of the entire Liberal cabinet at private members’ hour this morning, the House adopted for second reading a private member’s bill standing in my name, Bill 172,

An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Women, People with Disabilities, Native People and Members of Visible Minorities.

The minister will understand that employment equity has been endorsed most recently by the advisory committee to the government on the disabled. It has also been endorsed by the committee that studied poverty across the province, saying that unless you had employment equity opportunities and jobs for people instead of welfare, and a chance to work for people instead of welfare, we will never deal with the poverty crunch and the poverty crisis in the province.

I want to ask the minister this question: We showed him where we want to go. We showed him what we think needs to be done and we have offered it for debate and discussion in this House to become a law. We are not even the government. When is the minister going to produce his?

Hon Mr Wong: I welcome the initiatives that were taken by the honourable member in his private member’s bill today. It is a very complex subject and we welcome any suggestions that might come up.

Let me remind the honourable member once again that the government has moved in terms of the 88,000 employees of the Ontario Public Service, has taken initiatives that are currently being introduced to Bill 107, the Police Services Act, which focus on mandatory employment equity initiatives. The Ontario women’s directorate has a fund that helps employment equity for women, particularly in the broader public sector, not to mention initiatives that my colleague the Minister of Education has taken.

As I have mentioned to the honourable member before, I am working diligently through the cabinet process with my colleagues on broader employment equity initiatives to cover the broader public sector and the private sector of Ontario.

Mr B. Rae: The government’s definition of employment equity is to serve canapés and cocktails over in the Liberal caucus room. I can hardly get to my office for all the people who are being invited to parties over there. That is all they are doing, receptions, parties and plaques from the member for Parkdale. That is what it amounts to, receptions, parties and plaques. I am asking the minister for laws. I want to ask the minister, when are we finally going to see some legislation that is going to deal with this issue? When are we going to see it?

Hon Mr Wong: Let me say once again that the process of talking to approximately 100 different groups within the province of Ontario, to determine exactly what shape the employment equity initiative should take, was completed. The government is currently going through the cabinet committee process. I would say that as soon as possible we would love to introduce our employment equity initiatives.

Mr B. Rae: I would be the last one to stop the minister from doing what he would love to do. What I would like to ask the minister, though, is the following. He promised us this legislation in 1985. His party promised it in 1983 when it was in opposition. They promised it in 1984, they promised it in 1985 when they became the government, they promised it in 1986, they promised it in 1987, they promised it in 1988, they promised it in 1989, and now he is promising that there is nothing he would rather love to do than to bring in this legislation.

I would like to ask the minister, what is the force that is stopping him from doing what his party has said it wants to do for the last seven years? What is stopping him?

Hon Mr Wong: Again let me repeat that the government has shown its performance in these other sectors of the government. It will just be a matter of time before we are in a position to take it through the cabinet committee process to the cabinet in order to be able to present the employment equity initiatives.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. I presume that the Minister of Health is aware that last evening the medical advisory committee for the Hospital for Sick Children advised the board of directors of that hospital that the ICU should be closed permanently for all cases of elective surgery at the Hospital for Sick Children. This includes cardiovascular surgery, cranial surgery, major back surgery, neurosurgery and includes elective surgery cases surrounding trauma incidents.

This week alone 11 elective cases of cardiovascular surgery at the Hospital for Sick Children have been cancelled, 11 out of 11. One patient has been transferred to Montreal today. Another patient is being transferred to Detroit tomorrow. Is this the way the minister thinks the health care system in the province of Ontario should be run?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I can tell the member opposite that I am not familiar with the advice that the medical advisory committee gave to the board of the Sick Children’s Hospital. The Sick Children’s Hospital board has accountability and responsibility for the running of that hospital. I can assure the member that I will look into this matter and speak to the board chairman to determine what would be the basis for their advice.

Mr Eves: We already know the basis for their advice: a lack of ICU nurses at that hospital. That matter was brought to the minister’s attention by myself in this House on 12 April, on 16 April, and on 23 April of this year. This question has been asked of the minister many times. She is well acquainted with Dr Salerno’s internal review of the Hospital for Sick Children, which was an independent review.

His conclusion was that there was a shortage of ICU nurses at the Hospital for Sick Children, and now the medical advisory committee sees that it has no alternative but to close that unit permanently to all cases of elective surgery for children at the Hospital for Sick Children in this province.

The hospital made a request of the Ministry of Health on 7 April for extra funding for ICU nurses. They expected a reply within three weeks. It is now June and it looks as if they are going to be faced with closing that unit permanently. Is the minister going to give them the extra money they need for ICU nurses at the hospital?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I met with the board chairman of the Hospital for Sick Children and some of its members, including its chief executive officer. I am confident that in fact we are working with them to ensure that we assist them in areas that are appropriate for the ministry.

I can tell him that he knows the Hospital for Sick Children is a transfer payment agency of the ministry. They have some very special and unique services that they offer, but they are one of a number of children’s hospitals across the province. Many referrals come to the Sick Children’s Hospital that can be appropriately provided in other children’s hospitals. That is the reason we established a paediatric cardiovascular network so the children will be able to receive the services that they need when they need them.

I can assure the member that in the area of expertise, the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto will continue to provide the kinds of appropriate services and that it is working closely with other children’s hospitals across this province.

Mr Eves: The minister has not listened to a thing I have just said. The medical advisory committee of the hospital is telling the minister that it cannot provide those services because she will not give it the money.

Is the minister aware of the fact that the trauma program for elective surgery at the hospital has been closed 48% of the time since 1 January this year because of a shortage of ICU nurses at that hospital? Is the minister aware of that fact? If she was not, I hope she is now. What is she going to do to provide the money, as she said she provides, to the Hospital for Sick Children so it can hire more nurses so that children can get their surgery here instead of going to Montreal, Detroit and all other places across the globe?

The Speaker: Thank you. You have asked the question. You do not have to explain why.

Hon Mrs Caplan: The member opposite is not fairly portraying the situation at all. The Hospital for Sick Children in fact is a trauma centre. They have had an usually high number of trauma cases and they expect to be back to normal very shortly. I want him to know that they are working with other children’s hospitals to make sure that children who require surgery on an elective basis can receive that surgery in the most appropriate location. In the meantime, I want him to know that we are working with the hospital to make sure that services are available to the children in this province when they need them.

NON-PRO