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

December 1, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L072 - Mon 1 Dec 1986 / Lun 1er déc 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

TRANSITION HOMES

NATIONAL SAFE DRIVING WEEK

GOVERNMENT'S PERFORMANCE

FLOODING

ARTS FUNDING

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

GREY CUP GAME

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS LEGISLATION

IDEA CORP.

GOVERNMENT INVENTORIES

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH SERVICES

IDEA CORP.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TRANSITION HOMES

INFLUENZA VACCINE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

IDEA CORP.

DAY CARE

IDEA CORP.

RETIREMENT SAVINGS

HAMILTON HEALTH CENTRE

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

RETIREMENT SAVINGS

ADULT EDUCATION

SUNDAY TRADING

RACE RELATIONS

PETITIONS

LÉGISLATION PORTANT SUR LES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE / EQUALITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE MEETING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INFLATION RESTRAINT AND PUBLIC SECTOR PRICES AND COMPENSATION REVIEW REPEAL ACT

FARM LOANS AND FARM LOANS ADJUSTMENT REPEAL ACT

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF NORTH BAY ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

Mr. Stevenson: The winter 1986 issue of Seasons, a magazine published by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, had a good

summary

article about Lake Simcoe, entitled Troubled Waters. The

article discusses problems associated with phosphorus loadings of the lake, associated weed and algae growth and decomposition, and the resultant oxygen depletion in the water.

The previous government allocated in excess of $100 million to deal with phosphorus loadings from municipalities and municipal sewage treatment plants. Last week we laid the last pipe on the $57-million project in Keswick. Upgrading of the Barrie and Orillia plants has been completed; the York-Durham sewage trunk was extended to pick up the effluents from Newmarket and Aurora, and approvals were given for Schomberg and Innisfil. Many other projects were also funded relating to erosion control and fish stocking in the lake.

The Lake Simcoe environmental management strategy, tabled in October 1985, stated the priorities of action for future projects. It is now time for this government to put its money where its mouth is and allocate a further $100 million to save Lake Simcoe.

TRANSITION HOMES

Ms. Gigantes: The government's review of funding for transition houses and family resource centres was released in May of this year. Brian Law, the review officer, underlined the need for guaranteed, adequate and stable funding for family violence centres. He said in his report:

"The introduction of various initiatives and, in fact, the initial announcement of a provincial response have been greatly influenced by the political climate of the province and timing of announcements by various politicians. Often the information regarding initiatives received by program staff in the field responsible for implementation was little more than the announcement itself."

The pattern is holding. Transition and interval houses still do not have a core funding program. Of the $5.4 million in family violence initiatives trumpeted by the government in September, some moneys were to go to child care in transition and interval houses.

That funding is supposedly available from today, December 1, but the houses still do not know for sure whether they will get money for child care or what they might constructively do with money for public education, which will only increase demand for their overburdened services. They were not consulted on the new initiatives and they do not yet know what those initiatives mean.

Where is the $5.4 million going and when do the service providers get a chance to say what they need to help women and children who are victims of violence?

NATIONAL SAFE DRIVING WEEK

Mr. Ward: The week of December 1 to December 8 is National Safe Driving Week in Ontario. I am sure all the members of the House will want to join me in commending to drivers on Ontario's highways the need to observe the rules of safety during the course of this week and throughout the rest of the year. To this end, Young Drivers of Canada is sponsoring a Lights On week to bring greater awareness to drivers and to ensure that this is not only a happy holiday season but also a safe one.

GOVERNMENT'S PERFORMANCE

Mr. Harris: The members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition take this opportunity to welcome everyone to David Peterson's Ontario. It is a place where booze and boats do not mix unless the drinks are being mixed by the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes). Abortion is illegal until it comes time to prosecute. Sunday shopping is banned but it is open for business as usual. Conflict-of-interest rules are being established for all members when half the cabinet has already broken them. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is above drinking laws at Queen's Park. QCs still exist a year after they were abolished.

David Peterson's Ontario replaces rent controls with rent increases, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines with a southern Ontario actor and Darlington with Darlington. There is government mismanagement, bungling and indecisiveness on a number of issues. Nobody knows whether abortion clinics are legal. Nobody knows whether extra billing or billing for uninsured items is legal. Nobody knows whether you can drink while boating. Nobody knows whether you can drink on the front lawn of Queen's Park. Now nobody knows whether you can open a store on Sunday, work on Sunday or shop on Sunday.

This Liberal government is rudderless and spineless on a number of issues. Chaos is developing in the law-and-order system. The problem is at the top. Doctors do not extra bill; they administer. Laid-off northerners whine and complain when the Premier says they have no problems at all. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) --

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

Mr. Harris: -- wishes merry Christmas to all. Welcome to David Peterson's Ontario.

FLOODING

Mr. Hayes: The International Joint Commission has just issued a letter to Joe Clark, Secretary of State for External Affairs, urging government action in the face of continuing high water levels. The letter makes it clear that despite statements by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) to the contrary, it is possible to affect water levels in the Great Lakes. According to the International Joint Commission, there is an urgent need for greater protection for residents along the shoreline.

Now that the International Joint Commission has publicly acknowledged that the lake levels can be controlled and that there is an urgent need for action, it is time the Minister of Natural Resources stopped playing games with this issue and started protecting the lives and property of the people of this province. It is time for the Minister of Natural Resources to acknowledge the fact that the levels of the Great Lakes can be controlled. He should take his head out of the sand, take action on this very serious issue and stop playing political games with it.

ARTS FUNDING

Mrs. Marland: If Bill 26 is allowed to pass without amendment, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon), in his unwillingness to listen to the concerns of Ontario's not-for-profit theatres, will have destroyed opportunities for Canadian artists to perform here at home. The minister will have eliminated hundreds of hours of directly related employment for stagehands and local musicians and he will have eliminated countless hours of work in industry-related sectors such as the restaurant business, not to mention some $1.6 million that, because of this revenue grab, will not be available to the theatres to reinvest in quality entertainment for the residents of this province.

Therefore, I again ask the minister to look beyond the shortsighted intent and maintain the 10 per cent sales tax exemption currently extended to Ontario's not-for-profit theatres.

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Philip: On November 13, in answer to a question I raised, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) stated that he could not give me a specific answer concerning the problems of the Rembrandt home owners and said that the Ombudsman had a different set of demands from the standing committee on the Ombudsman with regard to Rembrandt Homes.

That is not the case. I assure the House that the report of the standing committee on the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman's report are identical. We have asked for some justice for the Rembrandt home owners.

The minister also stated there were different numbers, and that they ranged from 26 particular cases to 175 cases. This is not the case. He also stated he was having his staff look into finding out specifically who would qualify. The report is fairly clear. The report says the home owners' association would provide the list.

I suggest the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations do the honourable thing, namely, go that route and refund the money owing to those home owners.

GREY CUP GAME

Mr. G. I. Miller: It is important today that we recognize the Hamilton Tiger-Cats on the great win they came up with yesterday. We do not want to underestimate Hamilton, because they sure started the game out well and they had everything under control all day. As a matter of fact, I was able to pick up a couple of dollars on the side. We want to congratulate them.

Mr. Andrewes: I would like to join with the member for Haldimand-Norfolk in his congratulations to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. However, the gamesmanship will really begin now as the new chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Football League joins Happy Harold around that table for discussions.

13:41

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Later today, I shall present the Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act, 1986, to this House for first reading. This bill amends the relevant sections of the Child and Family Services Act, 1984, and certain related legislation. Its introduction today is the result of several years of consultation.

The extensive consultations were required because of the sensitive and controversial issues involved. It was necessary to strike the best possible balance between the right of the individual to privacy and the right of adoptees to know about their past. The wishes of birth parents who expressed a need to know what became of their child were considered as well.

Early in 1985, my ministry commissioned Dr. Ralph Garber to review the whole matter of adoption disclosure. Dr. Garber's comprehensive and thoughtful report was completed and released late in 1985. It advocated easier access to both nonidentifying and identifying information for all those affected. Dr. Garber believes the facts surrounding an individual's adoption belong to that person regardless of where and how they are safeguarded.

While my ministry, like Dr. Garber, favours a more open approach to disclosure, we also recognize the right to privacy of all those involved in the adoption process. For example, we were not prepared to accept his recommendation that adult adoptees be given identifying information without the consent of the parties to be disclosed. As well, the government concluded that disclosure of identifying information about adoptees or birth relatives should be restricted until the adopted child becomes an adult. In that way, the integrity and confidentiality of the adoptive family and the best interests of the adopted child are protected while the child is growing up.

Similarly, birth parents are protected against disclosure or contact until the adoptee is an adult and old enough to understand the implications of disclosure for all those who may be affected by it. Until the adoptee is 18 years of age, nonidentifying information is given to adoptive parents to share at their discretion.

Many of Dr. Garber's recommendations were incorporated into the new policy, and careful consideration was given to the comments and concerns expressed by adoption agencies and others involved in the adoption process.

In June 1986, I announced the government's response to the Garber report and released Ontario's new adoption disclosure policy. The bill I shall present today is the legislative embodiment of that policy, the Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act, 1986.

These are some of its major features:

Adult adopted persons and their birth relatives will be able to obtain identifying information about each other by mutual consent through the adoption disclosure register. Consent by adoptive parents will no longer be required. Nonidentifying information, that is, general background data on birth parents and information about the health and development of the adoptee, will be released on request to all adult parties to an adoption. Adult birth brothers, sisters and grandparents of adoptees will also have access to this information. Counselling will be made available when nonidentifying information is disclosed and counselling is mandatory before identifying information is disclosed.

The position of registrar of adoption information is created to oversee disclosure of information and provision of related services. The registrar may disclose identifying or nonidentifying information to any person if someone's health, safety or welfare requires it.

On the request of an adult adopted person, the registrar will conduct a confidential and discreet search for specific birth relatives. Information may be withheld if its disclosure may result in serious physical or emotional harm to any person. Persons who are refused information may appeal to the Child and Family Services Review Board. The bill also provides for the disclosure of information relating to out-of-province adoptions.

When the Child and Family Services Act was passed in 1984, adoption agencies and the general public strongly objected to the restrictions governing disclosure of adoption information. More than two years now have passed of study and consultation, and the revisions have produced the well-balanced amendments I shall place before you today. These amendments are designed to provide just and humane solutions to problems that have clouded adoption information for many years. They are designed to reconcile as harmoniously as possible the wishes and needs of parents, adoptive parents, children and relatives involved in the adoption process.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of my staff sitting in the gallery who have worked so long and so hard on this.

Mr. Baetz: In response to the statement of the Minister of Community and Social Services, I note he pointed out that it was necessary to strike the best possible balance between the right of the individual to privacy and the right of adoptees to know about their past. To the extent that this legislation will achieve this objective, he will have the support of our party.

I would like to raise one question here. On page 6 of his statement, the minister notes, "The registrar may disclose identifying or nonidentifying information to any person if someone's health, safety or welfare requires it." My only question is, and it is something we will be asking later on, who determines and who interprets whether somebody's health or wellbeing requires it?

Mr. McClellan: I want to respond to the adoption disclosure statement of the minister. It needs to be said that the statement was necessary because of the simple-minded and dangerous initiatives of Mr. Drea. When Minister of Community and Social Services, in a fit of pique he outlawed the disclosure of all information by child welfare agencies to adoptive parents. The first thing this bill does is to make sure that nonidentifying medical and genetic information, which is so necessary to be provided, can once again be provided to adoptive parents.

Second, I say that for those with historical memories -- and the historical memory around here is about three days -- it has been eight years, almost to the day, since we first debated amendments to the Child Welfare Act which would have brought in measures to provide for an active registry, with two-party consent and the disclosure of identifying information to adult adoptees within a counselling environment, without the veto of the adoptive parents. I remind the minister that he himself was instrumental in voting down that amendment in 1978. Here we are, in 1986, with a proposal to do exactly what we could have done eight long years ago. Such is progress in the Ontario Legislature.

I still feel very strongly that the rational solution is to have an open system along the lines of the British system. Adults should be entitled as a matter of right, and really as a matter of course, to information about their own birth identity, their own roots, about the question of who they are, without the interference of the state.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am pleased to advise the House that the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act have been proclaimed and come into force today. This legislation provides greater consumer protection and ensures realistic drug prices in the marketplace.

The Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act will ensure that all consumers get the information they need to make informed and economical drug purchases. When filling prescriptions where more than one manufacturer's product is available, the pharmacist now must inform the customer that a lower-cost drug is available. In addition, pharmacies are required to indicate both the cost of the drug and the cost of the dispensing fee on the customer's receipt. Pharmacies must also post the dispensing fee for interchangeable drugs in the store. They may charge less than the amount posted, but they may not charge more.

The act also clearly establishes the government's authority to designate which prescription drugs are legally interchangeable. This will ensure that the highest quality drugs are available to Ontario's consumers by requiring manufacturers to meet the high standards incorporated in the legislation. The ministry will continue to rely upon the expert advice of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee for information on which benefits should be included in the formulary and which drugs should be included as legally interchangeable.

The Ontario Drug Benefit Act will, for the first time, give government the clear legislative authority to manage the Ontario drug benefit program efficiently. The ODB is an essential component of the province's health care system. It provides prescription drugs at no charge to senior citizens, those on provincial assistance programs, those in extended care facilities and those in the home care program.

13:50

Until now, the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary, which lists the drugs provided to those on the plan and the prices the government pays pharmacies for prescriptions filled under the plan, has been based on the quotes received from drug manufacturers.

Some manufacturers realized that by quoting artificially high prices for the formulary -- prices higher than pharmacies were actually paying for drugs -- there was an incentive for pharmacies to purchase their products. As a result, government reimbursements for many drugs dispensed under ODB were higher than the cost of many drugs to pharmacies. This practice was known as price spreading.

Because the formulary prices also serve as a guideline for the drug sales in the cash market, its artificially high prices on some drugs also meant excess costs for cash customers as well. The new legislation will help solve both problems.

Under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, manufacturers will be required to provide the government with detailed pricing information so the government will be able to establish the best available price for each drug listed in the formulary. This strengthens and clarifies the government's authority to manage the drug plan more effectively. Controlling the costs of the plan will result in savings to the government that can then be used to expand drug benefits.

A total of 182 drugs have been added to a new formulary that has been published and distributed to pharmacists. This formulary brings the total number of drug benefits in the formulary to approximately 2,600.

At this juncture, I might indicate that some members of this House have phoned me to inform me that some pharmacists have not received copies of the formulary as indicated. We indicated to each of those members that the formulary had been mailed by priority post, which guaranteed 24-hour turnaround time. In some isolated instances, as I understand it, this has not been met. I request that all members advise me directly of any problems so we may be of assistance to those pharmacists who have not yet received this material.

The price for each prescription drug listed in the new formulary will be an amount that includes the best available price for a drug, an additional 10 per cent of that best available price, plus a dispensing fee for each prescription. Best available price is the lowest amount at which pharmacies can purchase drugs in Ontario. The additional 10 per cent is meant to take into account differences in distribution and quantities purchased.

The Ontario Pharmacists' Association and the government so far have been unable to agree upon a new dispensing fee, which up until now has been $5 per prescription. We will continue to negotiate this fee with the OPA; however, under the power of the new legislation, we will request a fact-finder if ongoing discussions do not result quickly in a fair and equitable solution. In the interim, the dispensing fee will be adjusted to $5.32 to reflect the inflationary increase for the period from April 1, 1985, to the present.

Recognizing that it is part of the professional authority of physicians when prescribing medications to ensure that a patient's best interests are protected, the new legislation eliminates the practice by pharmacists of dispensing only a one-month supply under ODB.

While pharmacists will be able to exercise their professional judgement and limit quantities when they believe a supply of medication could have an adverse effect on the health or safety of a patient, they will now normally dispense the entire amount prescribed. This provision makes it easier for senior citizens, because they will not have to travel to a pharmacy as often to have a prescription for long-term therapy refilled.

For example, an elderly woman with a chronic heart condition who takes one heart tablet a day would now have to make three pharmacy visits to get a prescription of 100 heart tablets filled. With the elimination of one-month supply under ODB, she will be able to have the entire prescription filled in one visit.

As a service to senior citizens, a minor amendment has been made that will help them become enrolled in the drug plan sooner. Effective today, senior citizens will become eligible for drug plan benefits on the first day of the month following their 65th birthday. This means most seniors will be automatically enrolled in the drug benefit plan sooner than is now the case.

The government can be justly proud of this new legislation. It takes into account many of the views and suggestions of pharmacists, manufacturers, physicians, hospitals, numerous consumer groups, members of the general public and, most important, members of this august assembly.

Mr. Andrewes: The Minister of Health's statement is a prime example of the old adage that if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. I will take his statement and add it to my collection of the four or five I already have relative to the Ontario drug benefit plan.

The statement emphasizes the minister's desire to move the ODB plan into a consumer-oriented program. What it does not say is that the 182 drugs he is adding to his new drug benefit formulary could have been part of a formulary for the past year and a half had the minister not been so intransigent. He does not tell us about the cost of not adding those drugs. He does not tell us of the cost to either consumers or the ODB plan.

He knows of our continuing and ongoing concern relative to the lack of clinical evidence and research on adverse drug reaction. He knows of our continuing concern about the elimination of the one-month dispensing limit, which may add convenience but which may also add to the waste, and certainly to the risk with unused quantities of drugs in people's cabinets.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Very briefly, I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Health. This is almost the final step in a very long process. Some of the difficulties in the Ontario drug benefit plan came out many years ago through the Provincial Auditor, and to the minister's credit, he decided action would be taken to solve some of those problems. However, when we got the bill, it went through an incredibly long process in which all members of the committee played a very active role.

I am somewhat proud that basic or important aspects of the bill, the best available price and the negotiating process for a dispensing fee, the amendments that this party put forward, carried in committee.

There are other aspects of the bill that are very positive. The emphasis on interchangeability is extremely important. The use of generic drugs, which obviously involves interchangeability, will save the taxpayers and the consumers of this province millions of dollars, unless the federal Conservative Party is allowed to destroy the generic drug industry by the passage of its federal legislation, which will eliminate any savings these bills incorporate for the taxpayers if the federal Conservative Party gets its way.

We are pleased that the formulary has been published.

IDEA CORP.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I would like to inform the House that I took action over the weekend to respond to two problems affecting two projects. These are the Wyda Systems investment approved by the former Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. and a project involving Spectrum Semiconductor Inc., previously called LSI Applications Inc., undertaken through the former Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program.

With respect to Wyda Systems (Canada) Inc., the Ontario Development Corp. is seeking legal remedies against the company and has filed a court application this morning to have a receiver-manager appointed.

Members will be aware that the standing committee on public accounts of the Legislature has indicated it would not object to an interim loan to Wyda. This was conditional on full co-operation by Wyda with the inquiries undertaken by the Provincial Auditor. These inquiries are undertaken on behalf of the committee into both Wyda and certain aspects of the affairs of the chief executive officer as they relate to the company.

When the officials from the Ontario Development Corp. discussed these and other conditions with Wyda, it became apparent that the required co-operation could not be obtained. I should also report that the chief executive officer of Wyda laid off all employees on Friday.

The Ontario Development Corp. has asked that, if appointed by the court, the receiver would review the operations of Wyda to determine the value of the technology and the ultimate viability of the enterprise. Furthermore, ministry officials have asked the employees to stay on the job, pending the appointment of a receiver-manager.

The chairman of the public accounts committee has been informed of these rapidly developing events.

The second case involves LSI Applications Inc., now known as Spectrum Semiconductor Inc. Spectrum was approved as a BILD project by the cabinet on April 22, 1985. The contract between the government and Spectrum was signed on June 17, 1985, by the then Minister of Industry and Trade. Under the terms of that contract, $5.8 million of public funds has been disbursed to this firm.

Ministry officials became aware of difficulties in both the management and financial strength of Spectrum and called in the accounting firm of Coopers and Lybrand on November 24 to examine the operations of the company. The verbal preliminary report was made available to the ministry on Friday, November 28, and Coopers and Lybrand has been asked to continue its review. Based on the available information, officials of the ministry notified the Ontario Provincial Police on Sunday, November 30. The provincial police have decided to initiate an investigation.

Mr. Gillies: On June 10, 1986, I stood in the House and asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) about two investments totalling $8.5 million made by this government. We in the opposition alleged they were perhaps not made on the merit of the projects but because of the proximity of individuals in these projects to the Liberal Party and the current government of Ontario.

After the Premier had finished his usual denials and abuse, he undertook to look into the matters. That proceeded and led to a statement in the House which was nothing short of a whitewash. The $5 million lent to Graham Software Corp. appears to have been lost, as we found out in the minister's more recent statement. Today, we learn that the $3 million-plus lent to the Wyda Corp. may be also in jeopardy.

During the inquiry by the public accounts committee, we were told repeatedly by officials of the ministry, of the former IDEA Corp. and of the Ontario Development Corp. that the quality of the product and the stability of the Wyda company could not be questioned; we could question the roles of Wilfred Caplan and Ivan Fleischmann in this business, but the company itself was sound and beyond reproach and was going to be just fine.

This is clearly not the case. The company is refusing to co-operate with the public accounts committee, which wants to know the details of how the $3 million which flowed to this company has been expended and used. The company is refusing to respond to the committee's request. The chief executive officer who testified to the committee that everything was just wonderful, that his technology was earth-shattering and was going to cut a leading edge for our province in high technology, has now laid off the employees.

Most incredibly, in the minister's statement is the statement that "the receiver would review the operations of Wyda to determine the value of the technology and the ultimate viability of the enterprise." They are going to find out now. We understood in the committee that this investment was monitored closely by officials of the ministry. Naturally, we assumed that everything was fine before the $3 million-plus was invested there.

This incredible statement today throws wide open again the question of whether this investment was made on the basis of merit or whether it was made on the basis of political consideration. I also suggest to the minister that the committee has done all it can on this matter. We have laboured long and well to unravel this mess; clearly, we have been unable to do so. The official opposition demands a full judicial inquiry into this matter, with a justice and with the power to subpoena. Let us get some real answers about the government's frittering away of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Philip: The statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is yet one more admission of the mismanagement of this government. Members of the New Democratic Party expressed grave concern about the manner in which the investment of $3 million was paid to Wyda and another $500,000 committed to it.

We expressed concern that taxpayers' money was being used for debt retirement rather than to meet the objectives of IDEA Corp. The standing committee on public accounts and the Provincial Auditor bent over backwards to try to find out exactly where the money was going and how it had been spent, and Wyda appeared to be unco-operative.

The taxpayers have a right to know where $3 million has been frittered away by this government. The deal smells to high heaven. I suggest the only thing that will satisfy the need to know by the public and by the public accounts committee is a full and open judicial inquiry, and I call on the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to hold one.

GOVERNMENT INVENTORIES

Mr. Harris: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On November 27, comments by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) were broadcast on the early evening CBC news. The Attorney General spoke about allegations of misuse of government property by members of this Legislature. He also said that, on the basis of his knowledge of the situation, there was no need for an investigation.

On the same news item, Liberals who would not reveal their names attempted to smear the reputation of two members of this Legislature. The CBC reported allegations on Thursday last about the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) and the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). These allegations were sourced by the CBC back to a Liberal source.

This type of mean-spirited media misrepresentation, playing fast and loose with the reputations of MPPs, is unacceptable. The Attorney General says there is nothing to the charges, but Liberals who lack the courage to let their names stand with their accusations attempt to smear the reputation of two outstanding MPPs. The openness and fairness of this administration has slipped another notch.

We demand an apology. We call on the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to determine who the Liberal sources are and, no matter who they are, to have them dismissed immediately.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Since the first part of the question relates to my press comments, may I point out to the honourable member and to members in the House that I was referring to the report of the Provincial Auditor at page 32 when the question was put, and I will just read what he says:

"When physical inventory counts at ministers' offices were conducted, ministry staff were unable to locate many items. In our test counts of over 225 assets listed in inventory records for ministers' offices, 60 items could not be located. These included desk lamps, typewriters, dictators, colour televisions, 35-millimetre cameras and accessories, overhead projectors and transcribers."

I made the point that when we came into office in mid-year there were occasions in which we were unable to find certain materials in ministerial offices.

Mr. Grossman: That is a disgraceful bit of allegation. It is a disgrace to his profession.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) come to order.

I have listened carefully to the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and I have listened carefully to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). Having considered this briefly but, I think, carefully, I find that while the member stood on a point of privilege -- he might have stood on a point of order because of allegations, because of imputing motives or whatever else -- I cannot see that it is a point of privilege. The matter took place outside the Legislature. Therefore, I have to state that I feel it is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Grossman: The Attorney General joins hands with those Liberals who secretly seek to besmirch the reputations of honest and decent members, and he should apologize.

Mr. Speaker: Question? Order. I have called for questions. The standing orders state that the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to questions. Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: And we are entitled to a degree of responsibility and respect from the Attorney General, which we cannot get.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Callahan: Come on, Larry.

Mr. Grossman: I am embarrassed as a fellow solicitor, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker. That was a disgraceful performance by someone whose responsibility is to uphold the law in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

14:12

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH SERVICES

He will know that last Thursday seven of its 21 operating rooms were closed. Three of those operating rooms have been closed for a month, often the busiest month of the year. He will know that more than 10 per cent of its intensive care beds are totally closed, 25 per cent of all of its operations are being cancelled and all heart operations for patients not already in hospital have been cancelled this week. All of this is because of the severe shortage of nurses in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman has underlined what this party has recognized for a long time, and that is the indispensable nature of the nursing profession to providing care in this province.

We have no real facts at this point to indicate exactly why there is a stress on the supply of nurses in the intensive care units of that particular facility. We know that surveys undertaken prior to this time indicate that the greatest need, as the member points out, is in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

There is an advisory committee to the ministry that deals with nursing, headed by a renowned individual in the health care field, who will be reviewing the material that will be made available as a result of a survey done in November of this year. We will be taking a look at what can be done as a result of the statistics generated there.

I understand, as well as the members of this House, from the reports in the press on the weekend, that the hospital corporation itself is attempting to recruit by sending its people to the Maritimes to look for extra people to deliver services in those parts of the hospital facilities.

I have developed a high degree of interest in this, particularly over the past three or four months, as I have heard from people that problems in intensive care have placed many nurses in a position where they make a decision not to continue to practice in that area.

Mr. Grossman: The minister's response has been that he will be studying some of the statistics. I remind him that he has a nursing manpower committee in the ministry, which has been there for some time.

We spoke to officials at the Toronto General Hospital, and they indicated to us that the ministry committee has been aware of this problem, not since November but for many months. The minister and his committee have done nothing whatsoever to alleviate the circumstance.

Can the minister report to the House, not his awareness of the current problem and his desire to do something about it now, but what he has been doing during the past 16 months to alleviate a problem that was absolutely predictable, all of it relating to demographics: the number of people in the system, the number of nurses in training and the number of nurses who have chosen to leave the profession? All this was pointed out to the committee by the Toronto General Hospital and others for several months. Specifically, what has the minister done or failed to do that has caused all these surgical procedures to be cancelled?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman knows full well from his days as Minister of Health that the question of nursing manpower has been and will continue to be a cyclical one. There are times when there is a heavy supply of people going into the profession and there are other times when there are not as many.

I have had friends who trained to be nurses, who ultimately went to the United States to practise because there was no market for them. Those people have returned at various times to fill the gaps, predicting where the need for nursing manpower is.

The advisory committee the member spoke about has been in existence for a long time, but there does not yet seem to be a clear reading for this particular problem -- which is in the nature of intensive care units, critical care units and the operation facilities -- that is why decisions have been made to exit from the practice of nursing in those areas. We are trying to come to grips with that, which may help us predict much better how to deal with the cyclical nature of the need of nursing manpower.

As I understand it, my advisers have been doing what they can to predict when these problems occur. It is not something I have been unfamiliar with. It is something I have taken the liberty of discussing when I visited some of the facilities and with the heads of some of those departments in other hospitals to see whether anything was in place. Some of those places have put in special committees to help nurses feel more comfortable in providing service.

Mr. Grossman: The minister has compounded the fear of neglect on his behalf. This afternoon he is saying he is not unfamiliar with the problem; he is admitting he has known about it for some time.

Given the fact he has known about it for some time, given the fact he has a nursing manpower committee and given the fact that during the negotiations with the medical profession, the minister personally offered to set up a fund to attract world-class doctors to come to Ontario or to stay in Ontario, how can he possibly explain the fact that there are dozens of heart surgical procedures being cancelled today, as we speak, with people, according to the hospital, on the waiting list likely to die because of the cancellations?

14:20

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked. The minister.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I did not say to the member that nothing had been done. They have done a lot of legwork in preparing to deal with this problem. In recruiting people in hospitals, as the member well knows, there is a requirement of management to take the steps it sees necessary to fulfil its manpower needs. There is no way for us to make every management decision within the hospital corporations, but we will take whatever steps my advisory committee thinks worth while.

As this member rises to talk to us today, I understand that there are already recruitment operations going on under the auspices of the hospital corporations about which he speaks. I hope on another occasion he will be able to stand and indicate that they have been successful. I believe they will be successful because we have a system here that is accommodating to the provision of high quality care to the people of the province.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Gillies: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology regarding Wyda Systems (Canada) Inc. The minister will appreciate that we on this side of the House are stunned by his statement today. I would like to go quickly through the points with the minister.

Our understanding is that persons close to the Liberal Party and to this government intervened to make this investment happen; that the company has gone into receivership; that the company is now refusing further co-operation with the standing committee on public accounts; and, most astoundingly, that the receiver will be asked to review the operations of Wyda to determine the value of the technology and the ultimate viability of the enterprise, a bald statement, as if this has not already been done by the minister's officials. We are absolutely appalled.

Is the minister prepared to recommend immediately to his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that a full judicial inquiry be held into this whole matter?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We have made a court application for receivership. That went in this morning and it was put over until this afternoon; so we will not know until later this afternoon whether it has been accepted. As the honourable member knows, the public accounts committee has been looking into this, and an investigation is being done by Mr. Bidden. We have kept in very close contact with the committee. The member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) has been notified of the action we have taken. We will see what happens on it.

Mr. Pope: My supplementary is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who will be aware that the committee unanimously found that the nature of the investment changed dramatically as a result of a breakfast meeting on the morning of April 10, 1986, at the Inn on the Park attended by three individuals who were involved in this matter.

Will the minister have a judicial inquiry not only into the failure of this company, but also into whether the decisions made that morning were proper and in accordance with the terms of the mandate of the IDEA Corp. and the Ontario Development Corp?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: First, as I said, the investigation is ongoing. We are having Peat Marwick look at it. We feel there is considerable value in the company, which we hope to save. That is why we have sent in an application and the investigation by Mr. Bidden will be continued.

Mr. Pope: Our first concern is that the documentation -- not only corporate but also personal -- be retained. As well, the minister will be aware that more than $1 million was distributed on the closing day to certain individuals who claimed a debt was owed to them by this company, and that the debt was unsubstantiated by the lawyers representing IDEA Corp. or by the people who were working for IDEA Corp. prior to that money being paid. For all these reasons, will the minister not agree that a judicial inquiry is warranted to get to the bottom of this?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: At present, as I have mentioned, it is hoped that Peat Marwick will be granted permission to go in and act as the receiver. Also, Mr. Bidden is continuing to look at it. I can assure the honourable member of our full co-operation with the public accounts committee on this matter.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the tough-talking Minister of Labour with respect to his new regulation. The minister knows there are 7,000 workers in Ontario, thousands of them in the reinforced plastics industry, who are exposed to styrene; yet the minister has set two standards for the province. The standard for the reinforced plastics industry is twice as high as the standard for other industries in the manufacture of styrene.

On December 6, the workers in Ontario will be protected by the new regulation from levels of styrene of 50 parts per million, but workers in the reinforced plastics industry will have to endure levels of 100 parts per million. The level is higher because the Minister of Labour cares more about industry than about the health of workers.

Will the minister tell us why this double standard exists? Why will he not force the reinforced plastics industry to live up to the same standards that everyone else in Ontario has to accept?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am amazed the honourable member is asking this question today. Surely he is aware that the standard proposed under the regulation is exactly the same standard that was proposed under the proposed designation of styrene, a designation about which there has been a public meeting. That meeting was held at the end of September. We are being absolutely consistent with the levels that are being proposed under the designation.

I am aware there is a different level of exposure allowed without the use of respirators, but I think my honourable friend will want to point out quickly that any worker in the reinforced plastics industry who is exposed to a level above 50 and below 100 would have to have a proper respirator. The member will also want to point out that for the first time, on December 6, the exposure levels for styrene as well as for hundreds of other chemicals will have the force of law, something they did not have before.

Mr. Martel: The minister had the force of law with designated substances, nine of them, and never used it; so what is he talking about? This is the tough-talking minister who said he would engineer out these conditions and would not force respirators on workers. He goes around the province bragging about how he will get these things engineered out, but is now prepared to have workers working in places with twice the exposure level of anywhere else. He is the one who by regulation is forcing the workers to put on respirators. Why is the minister doing that?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am sure my friend is aware that the exposure level of 100 without the use of respirators, which is the legal limit that comes into effect this Saturday, is exactly the same level as is being used in the United States.

Mr. Martel: Yes, and I oppose that too.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am sure he is also aware that the level is the same as that being used in other provinces. A great number of companies in the reinforced plastics industry today do not even reach the level of 100. We are going to have to ensure they have reached that level.

If my friend is suggesting that the reinforced plastics industry can reach 50 by this Saturday without having the workers use respirators, he should stand up and say so. I suggest that if the reinforced plastics industry had to reach the level of 50 by this Saturday without respirators, we would not have much of an industry on Monday morning.

Mr. McClellan: There is the old blackmailer.

Mr. Martel: In Sweden they have reached a level of 25 parts per million.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: They do not have an industry.

Mr. Martel: They have a styrene industry. The minister cannot tell me they do not use styrene in Sweden. The minister is nuts.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: They do not have an industry.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the member for Sudbury East sometimes gets a little carried away, but would he watch his language and ask the supplementary?

14:30

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am not being carried away by his silliness, it is that double standard --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Martel: By all means. Can the minister tell me why the union representative of the workers at Ceilcote Canada in Mississauga, who make this chemical coating and who produce fan ducts, has been after the minister complaining for more than a year about the problems in the plant of excess styrene? By the way, styrene causes drowsiness, reproductive problems and possibly cancer, and the minister knows this to be fact.

The minister's inspector has been writing orders for more than a year now. Even though the company has been ordered to ventilate the plant, the ministry has not allowed the extension or has ignored the company's proposal at the same time, with the result that the ventilation is still not in place one year after the orders started to be written by the minister's staff.

Can the minister explain why the ministry held up the installation of ventilation at this plant and tell us why the standard that the company will have to meet is twice as high as the standard for companies that manufacture styrene?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Over a number of months, the ministry has been working with this company during the past year. On a number of occasions we have inspected the company's facilities. We have issued a number of orders, not just for styrene but also for the storage of flammables. A number of stop-work orders have been issued. I can only say to the honourable gentleman that the orders for adequate ventilation were issued on July 17, 1986, and the company submitted sketches for the ventilation on October 10, 1986.

In November, the ministry engineer looked at the drawings, and since the time for compliance with the order had passed, a notice of noncompliance was issued by the ministry. We are concerned to ensure that the health and safety of the workers at Ceilcote are protected, and we hope the installation of the ventilation equipment can be completed as quickly as possible.

TRANSITION HOMES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question arising from the visit to the Legislature today of workers in the various transition homes for battered women around the province. The question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

I want to know what happened to the commitment that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) made during the last election to the notion that the centres should be seen as the major hub for dealing with the problem of battered women in this province. Why do they still have to spend so much of their time fund-raising on their own? Why is there such a lack of concern about payment for their services and such a heavy reliance on volunteers? And why has the minister still not given them guaranteed core funding this long into his term?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are 75 transition houses across the province that are funded by this government and this ministry. The difficulty that was brought to our attention was the lack of funding they could count on on a regular basis as opposed to just the per diems.

The honourable member will be aware that a decision was made to allocate $3,000 per bed for counselling fees that would be ongoing. The member will also be aware that we recently announced an increase of in excess of $5 million that was going to be used for a number of services, and one of them would be for children's counselling in the centres themselves. That money has been flowed to our area offices, and negotiations are going on with the various transition houses as to the sharing of that money.

The member will also be aware that additional dollars are going to be allocated through community resources for counselling of both victims and offenders, so that if there is any possibility at all of reconciling the family unit, that certainly will be done.

Finally, the member may not be aware of this fact, but recently my colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) has provided support --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I feel that the minister's statement is confusing the facts, if I might put it that way in order not to use stronger language. I would be interested to know how much of that $5 million is actually going to the centres, the transition houses. I think only a small portion of it is going there.

In the September 16 announcement he made about all this, the minister indicated money would be coming for child care workers. Does he realize that even in places such as Toronto there is currently a six- to eight-week waiting period to get children any kind of psychological assistance? Often, the children and their mothers have left the home by the time assistance in one of the mental health centres is available and that program is no longer available to the kids involved.

Can the minister tell us specifically how his child care announcements will improve the situation and when the money is available? According to these people today, none of them have heard from the minister or from his offices about any negotiations.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: This past summer, a member of my staff went around to every one of the transition houses and asked exactly what the needs were, based upon the assessment of the front-line people who are actually working in those houses. One of the first recommendations was additional funds for the children while they were in a house.

Until now, the recommendation had been that those children should use other community services, such as children's aid societies and children's mental health centres; but the recommendation was that the money should flow directly to the houses, so they could help the children while they were in a house. That money has been allocated to our area offices and will be allocated to the centres. That is the recommendation that was made to us, and that is the one that is going to be met.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You will notice, Mr. Speaker, the minister still ducked the fact that it is only $1 million out of the $5 million. The rest is going to other services in the community, not to the centres. He knows that is the case. As an example of the fact that he is moving away from this concentration and emphasis on the centres and other kinds of programs, how many new centres will the minister be opening in this province this year, knowing as he does that all the centres are turning away women on a regular basis because they cannot look after them?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member will be aware of the fact that a 24-hour-a-day telephone network was set up a year ago in Toronto and celebrated its first anniversary just this past week. Its purpose is to be sure the available spaces are known on the network, so that if a woman goes to any centre and cannot get the service she needs, she can be told immediately where else that service is available.

In answer to the second part of the member's question, four new centres are in the development stage right now.

The third part of the member's question concerned the allocation of money. A total of $5 million was allocated, a little more than $3 million to my ministry, and $1 million is going to go to the centres in various forms. The other $2 million is for the public education and community counselling programs that the member and several other members have said is necessary. The money is being distributed in several different ways, not just one. Transition houses by themselves are not the only need.

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot quote verbatim any instructions for the honourable gentleman, but I will provide that information to him in terms of advice. We are considering the ramifications of funding certain vaccinations for this program within the ministry, but I cannot give the member verbatim information otherwise; I will provide that to him at a later time.

14:40

Mr. Andrewes: That is almost the identical answer he gave the member for York Mills some 10 months ago. The vaccine costs approximately $15; it is not covered under the Ontario health insurance plan. Children between the ages of two and five are very susceptible, because they are in day care and prekindergarten centres.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable gentleman for his recommendations, and I will certainly take them into consideration. The honourable members opposite will realize the particular vaccine was approved for use in Canada only this past spring. We had to await that determination before we received approval for its use. I understand it is being used by some individual physicians with respect to their patients.

We are reviewing possibilities of funding the vaccinations. I will consider the strong recommendations of the honourable gentleman opposite and, I am sure, a number of his colleagues, as well as those suitably made by my colleagues, in due course.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Reville: My question is of the Minister of Housing. The Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses tells us that the major problem facing assaulted women and their families today is the shortage of affordable housing. Will the minister tell the House what specific steps he has taken to remedy that problem and to provide affordable housing for assaulted women and their children?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member knows I made a statement in the Legislature earlier about battered women; we had opened our doors to give them priority in Ontario Housing across the province. That is being done, not as fast as I would have liked, but it is being done.

With respect to the second part of what we are doing, I recently announced 3,000 units addressed to the hard-to-house people in this province. If members know there is a need in their areas, I request them to make their presentations to the ministry. We are targeting those 3,000 units to those hard-to-house people, especially battered women.

Mr. Reville: The minister will know it is not enough to open the doors, particularly when there is no room in the inn.

Is the minister aware that in spite of his 3,000 units for the hard-to-house, which I do not believe is the category into which he would put assaulted women and their families, and the 16,000 other units, the sods of which the minister has been busy turning, the vacancy rate will actually go down in Toronto, Hamilton-Wentworth, Oshawa and Ottawa-Carleton in the next year?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Is the honourable member telling me the vacancy rate will go down because we are accommodating battered women? We know we have a serious situation on our hands, and we know there is a lack of affordable homes. That is why we addressed 19,000 units this year alone towards affordable housing. That is a great increase to the 6,000 that were done in 1984. I know it is not adequate, but as the program of putting in 6,700 units goes on for the next five years, we are sure the vacancy rate will rise.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Pope: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with respect to the Wyda investment. The minister will be aware there is clear information that the proceeds of his government's investment in Wyda were invested to some degree to pay off the company's outstanding loans or debts.

One of those was a shareholder's loan in the name of the president of that company personally for approximately $450,000. He will also be aware that this loan was never examined by his officials, by those acting on behalf of the IDEA Corp., to substantiate it to see whether money had actually flowed from the president personally to that company and, therefore, that the promissory note was evidence of a real debt.

We know that on the day the government money was advanced, payment was made to the president of the company in circumstances that neither the minister nor I would tolerate in our day-to-day affairs. Knowing this, as just one example, will the minister agree that a full judicial inquiry is needed to clear up this mess?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: One of the problems we have had as a new government is that we have had to deal with such organizations as the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, an organization that the previous government set up.

An hon. member: Oh, come on.

Mr. Davis: Bob and Ian just gave you that answer a couple of minutes ago.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The previous government set it up. It is their board of directors; they were the previous government's rules. We took it over only on June 30.

I also am concerned about any investment such as this. As I mentioned to the member before, the investigation will continue before the standing committee on public accounts, Mr. Bidden and the receiver whom we hope to send in.

Mr. Gillies: The minister is somewhat confused. It is his slush fund we are talking about, not ours. It is $3 million in public funds, and all he has done is to stonewall and whitewash every step of the way. Every step of the way there has been stonewalling and whitewashing from this government.

After this matter was originally raised in the House, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) came in with an incredible statement trying to whitewash the whole affair. This minister has been trying to do the same ever since. How can we have any trust in any internal inquiry he will be undertaking? Why will he not do the honourable thing and put this out to a public inquiry?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I believe the member is a little misinformed. It was his slush fund, not ours.

Mr. Gillies: You have all your lobbying friends right in the trough. Why don't you come clean?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Brantford seems to be quite exercised. Did you want an answer?

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is of the Minister of Community and Social Services. He knows that since 1984 the city of Toronto has been providing an operating grant to nonprofit day care centres. These are not municipal centres but nonprofit centres. He also knows that what they have managed to accomplish in Toronto through this method is to provide for substantially increased payments for the care providers and to hold down costs to parents.

When is the minister's government going to follow the lead of Toronto and provide the same kind of direct grants, which will help families in Ontario find day care for their children?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware of the fact that our Premier (Mr. Peterson) was in Vancouver this past couple of weeks. He indicated very clearly and very publicly that this province wants to move forward in the area of direct grants and income testing to deal with both of the problems the member has just enunciated, the problem of low wages and the problem of high fees, and he asked the federal government to co-operate with us in making it possible for us to move forward in this area.

14:50

Ms. Gigantes: This minister is trying to pull a gag in this House. He knows perfectly well his government and the Conservatives before him could have brought in the same kind of program the city of Toronto now is operating with federal funding through existing arrangements with the federal government. Why is the government not now providing direct grants and the kind of income-testing he is talking about? What is he waiting for?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware that at present almost 50 per cent of all the licensed day care spaces in Ontario are in the commercial sector, which under the existing cost-sharing with the federal government cannot receive direct grants or income-testing. We cannot turn our backs on half of the licensed day care spaces in this province. What we are asking for is a transition period whereby we can deal with this issue as well as with the nonprofit.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who, having read his notes, will know by now that it was the finding of the standing committee on public accounts that the officials of the IDEA Corp. whom he employed who changed the nature of the investment as a result of a breakfast meeting on April 10 attended by Mr. Dobzinski, Mr. Caplan and one other individual, and that this decision was never taken to the board of directors. He will know that the funds we are talking about were allocated by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) for disbursement under the IDEA Corp. for this fiscal year and not from previous funds.

Having known that, having known the finding of the committee that a $30,000 payment was paid to Ivan Fleischmann, a self-described Liberal hack, having known that there was payment to a spouse of a cabinet minister of about $34,000 in total, having known that the debts that were paid off were not substantiated on closing and having known that this matter was discussed in his office since 1985, will he remove the matter from his office now and have a judicial inquiry?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I have commented on a couple of occasions, the IDEA Corp. was set up by the Conservative government. They were their directors and employees. We moved to close down IDEA Corp., mainly because of some of the things that happened there. I have instructed our ministry staff to co-operate fully with the public accounts committee. We have placed Mr. Bidden in there to do an investigation and we will do what we can to make sure it is followed through.

Mr. Pope: The minister knows full well that the inquiry by the public accounts committee found that these issues were inappropriate and that there was a clear conflict of interest. He knows full well from the information given to the committee that on at least one occasion officials in his office were involved in discussing this financing deal. He should remove it from his office. Why will he not have a judicial inquiry and protect those records so we can all find out what happened?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As far as I know, the records are being protected. I would not want to find out that they were not. I do not think the honourable member is questioning my integrity on this. That is one of the reasons we appointed Mr. Bidden to look into it. It is one of the reasons we asked Peat Marwick to go in as a receiver. It is one of the reasons the whole matter is under investigation. We have co-operated fully with the public accounts committee.

RETIREMENT SAVINGS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Treasurer, who I believe is still the minister in charge of pension policy. He will know that the federal government has now released application forms for the Canada pension plan that include, for the first time, a

section on the form, "When do you wish your retirement pension to begin?" As one of the architects of these changes to the Canada pension plan -- it was a federal-provincial initiative and Ontario had to exercise its approval for voluntary early retirement from age 60 under the Canada pension plan -- my question to the Treasurer is this: at a maximum benefit of $340 per month or $4,080 a year in early retirement benefits under the Canada pension plan, how many people in this province does the Treasurer think will actually be able to retire at age 60?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not expect anyone would be able to retire at that age unless he was disabled and therefore had access to additional revenue or had built up certain other assets that would assist him at that level.

The honourable member will recall raising this in the estimates of the Treasury two or three weeks ago, and I was able to inform him and other members of the House that the Treasury experts had reviewed the costs of extending programs that are normally allocated to retired persons over the age of 65 , and those numbers are already on the record.

Although they are large, they are not so large that they should not have careful consideration in the development of policy that would parallel the change in the Canada pension plan that now allows retirement between the age of 60 and 70 at the decision of the individual.

Mr. McClellan: Again, can the Treasurer enlighten us as to why on earth he would participate in the approval and development of a scheme that has no practical application of any kind unless somebody is independently wealthy?

Can the Treasurer tell us when Ontario will bring in a supplementary benefits program, an Ontario early retirement pension plan, that would permit citizens in this province to take advantage of voluntary early retirement at age 60, perhaps starting with workers in heavy industry and in companies where the employer agrees to replace early retirees with young workers? When does the Treasurer intend to bring in a program that will make this a meaningful possibility?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member should not dismiss out of hand the possibility that a number of people working, employed in this province over a number of years, have built up savings and resources that would permit them to undertake at least the consideration of a retirement earlier than 65, and that the additional payments from the Canada pension plan would be useful and advantageous for them.

I am aware that the New Democratic Party has a program that would advocate earlier retirement and, just as we pay attention to all the New Democratic programs, we are also looking at this one.

HAMILTON HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. Ward: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is the minister aware that the landlord from whom his ministry currently rents space for children's mental health services in Hamilton has served notice that the lease will be cancelled in the very near future? Is the minister prepared to look at the possibility of relocating these services into the new east end health care facility when it is available?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The representatives from Hamilton-Wentworth region were in to see me a few weeks ago asking us to transfer the location of our children's mental health centre. At that time, I pointed out to them that we were located in a commercial building and that the rent and the renovations for the newer building were much higher than what we were paying where we were and that, quite frankly, unless they could get a better deal for us, I could not afford to divert children's mental health money for that purpose.

I have recently learned that we may have to give up that lease. If that is the case, we are prepared to sit down again and attempt to negotiate a deal with the east end health clinic.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Attorney General. Can the minister tell us the scope of the police investigation looking into the conduct of the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) and what the cost of this will be to the taxpayer of Ontario?

Why is any investigation necessary since the Solicitor General has openly admitted to drinking while the Ontario Provincial Police boat was under way? Why does the Attorney General not lay the charge as was the case for 800 other ordinary citizens in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, it is the responsibility of the police to lay charges. I can answer his questions. As I understand it from the Metropolitan Toronto Police, its investigation will be a complete and full one. It will involve no direct costs to the Ontario government.

15:00

Mr. Sterling: Inspector Neish of the Metropolitan Toronto Police has said that his investigation will last approximately another week. Will the minister agree to table and assure this House that the report on the investigation will be tabled in the House once it has been completed?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, reports are made to the Ministry of the Attorney General. For reasons I have previously given to the House, we are not in the practice of revealing the complete report. I will be glad to look at the report when it is in hand to see whether there is any reason why it should not be released to the House.

RETIREMENT SAVINGS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have another question for the Treasurer with regard to pensions. My colleague raised the question of early retirement and the Treasurer indicated some workers may have built up some assets that would allow them to retire early. The Treasurer will be aware that if they have early retirement bridging arrangements under the private plans, they will lose most of that money if they take advantage of early retirement under the Canada pension plan. When I asked the Premier (Mr.

Peterson) about this on October 22, he indicated he would talk to the Treasurer and the appropriate minister and get back to us as to whether they were prepared to look at closing this loophole. Can he tell us where we stand at the moment?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think the honourable member took

part in the discussions on this matter at the time of the Treasury estimates. We are looking at the cost of extending the guaranteed annual income system below the age of 65, extending assistance under the Ontario drug benefit program and quite a wide range of programs that are available to residents of Ontario, citizens of Canada, over the age of 65. I am not prepared to give the member anything specific on this. It is being reviewed by people in Treasury along with many other aspects of our policy.

Mr. Mackenzie: The Treasurer will know that the current policy negates the ability to take early retirement. He will also be aware that Quebec amended its pension legislation in 1984 to allow for early retirement. At the same time as they amended their pension legislation, they closed this loophole. If Quebec can do it, why can Ontario not do it?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member is aware that pension legislation is pending. There have been all sorts of discussions involving bringing our pension requirements into a parallel position vis-à-vis other provinces. This matter is going to be debated extensively in the Legislature and following that in the committees of the House.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr. Polsinelli: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Last week the minister made a statement on a new formula for adult education funding in this province. Can the minister assure the House that this formula will not in any way lead to fees being charged to separate school supporters for vital adult education programs or the needless duplication of these programs across the province?

Mr. Davis: Go ahead; tell us again.

Mr. Ashe: Tell us again. It was in your press release but he did not read it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am delighted to have a question from my colleague the member for Yorkview on an important matter. This question represents more by way of interest than I have heard from my friends the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) or the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis), who clatter on quite noisily this afternoon.

Mr. Ashe: We read your press releases.

Mr. Davis: We read your press releases.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes, the new formula, which we believe is an important and positive response to the concern that has been identified, will address the concerns that the new formula will provide 100 per cent funding for the costs of delivering approved adult education courses.

Mr. Davis: It was the only option you had and it took you 17 months to find it. I learned to add yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Perhaps I can just calm down my friend the member for Scarborough Centre, who has become more agitated than he has any right to be on a day such as today. The new formula will recognize the actual cost of providing the programs and will see substantial increases to many boards. No school board will be worse off as a result of the new formula.

Mr. D. W. Smith: The Minister of Education has said this new funding mechanism is definitely going to improve the situation for a lot of school boards and possibly for the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. I am concerned about whether the minister is going to take anything away from the small and rural school boards. Can he assure me this will not happen?

Mr. Davis: What book is the minister reading today? Quote from it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough Centre may have his turn shortly.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my friend the member for Lambton that we have recognized the need to make changes. We have consulted widely. I had expected to hear the advice of the official opposition, but 16 months of silence was all I heard. It is remarkable that the member for Scarborough Centre can be silent on some matters, but on this important matter he was much more silent than he is in question period.

Mr. Davis: The minister does not listen. I would have given him the answer 17 months ago when it was raised in Bill 30 hearings.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am still waiting.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interjections are out of order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I fear I shall wait much longer for constructive advice from the tatters of the once powerful Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario.

Miss Stephenson: If the minister wants to see a tatter, he should look at himself.

Mr. Rowe: Look who is back.

Hon. Mr. Conway: She has returned from Bahrain, and all is peaceful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. All interjections are out of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Gillies: Go ahead, Sean; make her day.

Mr. Speaker: There may be a further comment to your response.

Hon. Mr. Conway: To the member for Brantford, I have a feeling I could make the day of the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) a lot better and a lot quicker than could the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman).

Mr. Harris: Is that not out of order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Pope: What does that mean?

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. O'Connor: The Treasurer was just laughing out aloud about the Sunday shopping issue, and I thought I would ask a question of the Attorney General in this regard. He will be aware of the announcement this week by Simpsons that it intends to open all 11 of its Toronto-area stores this coming Sunday. He will also be aware that several other large stores will be opening in direct violation of the Retail Business Holidays Act. Will the minister tell us whether he intends to attempt to enforce the law by laying charges and proceeding with them or whether he has simply thrown in the towel, given up the ghost and is going to allow this to continue unabated?

Hon. Mr. Scott: In these cases and any others where stores remain open contrary to the law, charges will continue to be laid. The reality is, as the member knows, that the Court of Appeal of Ontario has upheld the validity of the act in question. That act represents the law of Ontario, notwithstanding the pending appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada.

We have been laying charges where infractions occur. The courts have elected not to proceed with those charges pending a determination from the Supreme Court of Canada, but we will continue in this case to lay charges.

I should add one other word. To me it is an offensive and shocking thing when, for whatever reason, one of the more responsible merchants in the community decides it will consciously, as a matter of policy, break the law of Ontario established by the Court of Appeal.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That can be forgiven in many cases where one is dealing with small wage earners, but in my opinion it cannot be justified, even when there is a major economic motive to do so. I hope the Robert Simpson Co. and other companies like it, which have a substantial public reputation in the province for integrity and honourable dealing, will reconsider and see fit to comply with the law our court has fixed.

15:10

Mr. O'Connor: This government has seen fit to communicate with senior executives of companies when difficult problems have arisen in the immediate past. I speak of Goodyear. As soon as that problem arose, members of the government were immediately on the phone to the chief executive officer. Has the Attorney General arranged to meet with or has he instigated any kind of meeting with the presidents or any of the chief executive officers of Simpsons or the Bay in an attempt to instil some sense into the situation pending the Supreme Court decision?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Frankly, I do not regard it as my function to meet with officers of large corporations to invite them to comply with the law of Ontario. Those large companies -- and we are not talking about smaller people trying to feed their families -- have a positive obligation to obey the law. They will not get a bended knee from me asking them to do so.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: To the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis), the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) would like to ask a question.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Labour in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Code.

I have with me a copy of the Enemy of Rambo doll. It is the only one in that series that has an ethnic-specific identification. It is clearly Arab. It is described as, "Treacherous;" "unstable as the blowing desert sand;" a "desert scorpion," "his only family a wandering band of cut-throats and thieves;" "men without honour who use their knowledge to carry out terrorist acts on innocent villages."

I am sure the minister recognizes the invidious racism of this product. The company in question has ceased to import this doll, but the inventories are in for Christmas and this is selling briskly in Hamilton, where I bought it, in Toronto and elsewhere.

Will the minister, as the administrator of the code, please advise us what he is doing to remove this doll from the shelves of Ontario stores so it is not an insidious piece of racism beamed to our children this Christmas?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This is the first I have heard of this matter. It is the first time it has been brought to my attention, and I thank the honourable gentleman for doing so. I will take up the matter with the officials of the commission immediately, and I will report back to the honourable member tomorrow.

PETITIONS

LÉGISLATION PORTANT SUR LES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE / EQUALITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION

M. Pope: J'ai une pétition signée par des gens de Cochrane Sud:

"La Législature ontarienne étudie présentement le projet de loi numéro 7. Ce projet `omnibus' présente des points très positifs et louables.

"Cependant, les numéros 1 à 5 de la

section 18, m'inquiètent beaucoup! Ce projet de loi consistant à modifier le Code des droits de l'homme, mentionne les `orientations sexuelles' de la personne.

"L'Église catholique dans sa tradition judéo-chrétienne fait nettement une distinction entre les orientations sexuelles d'un être humain et son comportement sexuel.

"En tant que citoyen de cette province, je m'oppose à une telle législation. L'Église catholique comme tous les groupements de culture judéo-chrétienne, ne peut tolérer une telle situation.

"Tout être humain a droit à la protection selon le Code des droits de l'homme, y compris les homosexuels. Cependant, la libéralisation des `activités' homosexuelles serait une grave erreur pour notre société.

"C'est pourquoi, bien cher Monsieur le Député, je vous demande de faire les recherches nécessaires et de voir à faire clarifier et corriger les points 1 à 5 de cette

section 18 du projet de loi `omnibus' numéro 7. La loi ne peut pas rendre légale l'homosexualité active avec toutes les conséquences que cela entraînerait."

J'ai une autre pétition aussi, Monsieur le Président:

"Je suis au courant que le projet de loi (Bill 7) est actuellement à l'étude à la Législature ontarienne.

"Il y a dans la

section 18 les numéros 1 à 5 qui me paraissent inacceptables. Ce projet de loi, consistant à modifier le Code des droits de l'homme, mentionne les `orientations sexuelles' de la personne.

"L'Église catholique dans sa tradition judéo-chrétienne fait nettement une distinction entre les orientations sexuelles d'un être humain et son comportement sexuel.

"Ce projet de loi dans sa formulation actuelle demeure très ambigu en se limitant à l'expression `orientations sexuelles'.

"Je vous rappelle que le comportement homosexuel est incompatible avec la morale chrétienne. Toute loi facilitant la pratique de l'homosexualité serait nuisible à la société, à toute institution qui s'y oppose et à l'éducation. En plus, si ce projet de loi dans sa formulation actuelle devenait légal, le couple homosexuel obtiendrait les mêmes garanties légales que le couple et la famille. D'ailleurs le service civil de Toronto parle déjà en ce sens.

"C'est pourquoi je vous demande en tant que notre député, votre intervention et votre influence politique pour la sauvegarde de la morale et de la famille dans le processus décisionnel du parlement. Puisse le gouvernement retarder toute action hâtive avant qu'une consultation soit faite à ce sujet."

Mr. Speaker: Do you have something further?

Mr. Pope: Yes, I do. I have a petition to present.

"The undersigned, being inhabitants of the city of Timmins in the province of Ontario who believe in the proposition that lawmakers and laws reflect common moral values of our society, strongly object to the inclusion of the sexual orientation provisions in Bill 14."

I also have a further petition from a different community in my riding, in French, to the same effect as what I read out previously.

Mr. Pollock: I wish to table a petition.

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

"We, the undersigned, of L'Amable Bible Chapel petition the government of Ontario not to introduce `sexual orientation' into the Human Rights Code of Ontario."

It is signed by 58 people.

I have another petition, which reads:

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

"We, the undersigned, from the Pentecostal Tabernacle, Bancroft, Ontario, petition the government of Ontario not to introduce `sexual orientation' into the Human Rights Code of Ontario."

It is signed by 152 people.

I have another petition.

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

"We, the undersigned, from the Bancroft Bible Chapel, Bancroft, Ontario, petition the government of Ontario not to introduce `sexual orientation' into the Human Rights Code of Ontario."

Another petition reads:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario not to introduce `sexual orientation' into the Human Rights Code of Ontario."

It is signed by 25 people who are "concerned citizens."

The last petition reads:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly, the province of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned members of the community of Belleville and district, beg leave to petition the government of Ontario,

whereas we wish to express our strong dissatisfaction with the government introducing legislation which will include `sexual orientation' in the Human Rights Code,

section 18 of Bill 7.

"This legislation would preclude the freedom presently enjoyed by religious institutions in having a strict code of conduct in hiring practices and would destroy the family concept so vital to our heritage and its perpetuality."

It is signed by 58 people.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office Responsible for Senior Citizens' Affairs be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987.

Office Responsible for Senior Citizens' Affairs program, $3,286,900.

15:20

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) and the member for Downsview (Mr. Cordiano) exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business and that, notwithstanding standing order 71(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to the ballot item standing in the name of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEETING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Tuesday, December 2, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INFLATION RESTRAINT AND PUBLIC SECTOR PRICES AND COMPENSATION REVIEW REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 163,

An Act to repeal the Inflation Restraint Act and the Public Sector Prices and Compensation Review Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The repeal of these two acts is proposed because the periods of restraint established by the statutes have expired. Accordingly, the statutes no longer serve a useful purpose.

FARM LOANS AND FARM LOANS ADJUSTMENT REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 164,

An Act to repeal the Farm Loans Act and the Farm Loans Adjustment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The repeal of these two acts is proposed because the statutes are outdated and have not been used in the past 20 years. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has much more appropriate and effective programs to assist farmers.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sweeney moved first reading of Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and Certain Other Acts in relation to Adoption Disclosure.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF NORTH BAY ACT

Mr. Harris moved first reading of Bill Pr40,

An Act respecting the City of North Bay.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to

section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Pope: On Thursday afternoon, as this debate adjourned, I was dealing with some of the comments of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) when he led off debate on this important legislation.

I was trying to make a point about the statement of the Attorney General that a distinction had to be drawn between criminal activity, because the Criminal Code took care of that, and the ability to discriminate with respect to housing and employment based on the grounds set out in the Attorney General's legislation. His statement is found on page 3622 of Hansard:

"It" -- the amendment -- "deprives nobody of the right to judge the competence of individuals objectively, whether it be for employment or housing. It does not alter the law of marriage. It does not downgrade the family as the central institution of our country. It does not alter or modify individual or societal values."

The point I was leaving with the Attorney General was that I did not see the point he was making. I did not know whether the Attorney General was saying that one can discriminate with respect to housing and employment on the basis of a criminal conviction, that one can discriminate with respect to housing and employment on the basis of an allegation of criminal conduct or on just what basis the Attorney General was linking an offence under the Criminal Code to the provisions for employment and housing under his amendments to the Human Rights Code.

I do not believe the distinction the Attorney General wants us to accept as his rationale for not worrying about this issue is necessarily the correct one.

The Attorney General said something that I find rather significant in the debate on this matter. I quote from page 3623 of Hansard:

"Everybody understands that in order to make this system work, we must regard moral questions as personal matters, not governmental matters, because as soon as a moral question becomes a governmental matter, then we have a tyranny over which there is no control."

With the greatest of respect to the Attorney General, that is as clear a statement of secular humanism in government as I have seen in a number of years. I do not share the Attorney General's point of view. I am sure many others in this province and in this country do not share the Attorney General's views. From time to time, governmental matters must have regard to moral questions, and we as legislators, without being pious or self-righteous about it, have a duty to address moral questions in our conduct and in the issues concerning which we enact legislation.

I do not accept the division the Attorney General so clearly laid out as a basis for secular humanism that we should be adopting in Ontario today.

I am not saying we need to have a tight, rigid code that reflects only the values that we as individuals hold for ourselves. I am aware that this is a pluralistic society and that we must be as all-embracing on these questions as possible. The Attorney General spoke eloquently to that in his comments about the need to reflect on the pluralistic nature of our society and to address that reality as a government in this province.

I therefore agree that in making decisions on moral questions we must have regard to the pluralistic nature of our society and the different values that are legitimately held by all members of society, but I do not endorse the comments of the Attorney General. I believe them to be a cry to secular humanism in the conduct of government.

15:30

I want to refer to an

article written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

"The West has yet to experience a Communist invasion: religion remains free. But the West, too, is experiencing a drying up of religious consciousness. Since the late Middle Ages the tide of secularism has progressively inundated the West. This gradual sapping of strength from within is a threat to faith that is perhaps even more dangerous than any attempt to assault religion violently from without.

"The meaning of life in the West has ceased to be seen as anything more lofty than the `pursuit of happiness,' a goal that has even been solemnly guaranteed by constitutions. The concepts of good and evil have long been banished from common use. It has become embarrassing to appeal to eternal concepts, embarrassing to state that evil makes its home in the individual human heart before it enters the political system."

I say to the Attorney General that the concern that has been expressed, which many others have read into the record, which many other members of this Legislature have expressed more eloquently than I can, is a concern that you cannot have the absolute on one end or the other. Somehow in the midst of it, there has to be an addressing of moral questions of the day in our conduct as politicians.

I am not taking the Attorney General's statement on page 53 of the Instant Hansard as any more than an expression of his philosophy. It is set out that way in Hansard and is a philosophy with which I disagree profoundly. We will have this disagreement on that basis and that basis alone. I think it is important for our governments and our politicians to reflect upon moral questions of the day, to wrestle with them and to try to come forward with some rational expression of common good, having gone through the philosophical debates that have to be gone through to address the moral questions.

As a Legislature, as lawmakers, our duty is not only to reflect upon moral questions of the day but also to reflect in this Legislature and to the people of the province our own sense of the concerns on moral questions that every individual in this province wrestles with on a day-to-day basis. We have a duty to deal with that here. I do not think we can walk away from it in this legislation, or in any other piece of legislation or in anything else we do as legislators.

I profoundly disagree with the statement the Attorney General made. It is the wrong signal to send out to caring individuals and organizations in our society who are not happy to make anyone or any group the whipping boy for their own morality, who are not anxious to be seen as anything other than tolerant and caring individuals, but who do have some concern about the general drift of our society and where we are going as legislators and want that reflected here on the floor of the Ontario Legislature.

I want to reiterate that I disagree with the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). I do not think the people who have expressed concern over these amendments are the voices of intolerance in our society. I do not think the Big Brothers are the voices of intolerance; they are a caring group of individuals trying to help children. I do not think the Boy Scouts are the voices of intolerance; they have a long history of service to all society.

I do not think organized religions and church groups are the voices of intolerance; they have a great deal of concern about the moral questions they confront in their daily lives and they want to see those concerns reflected in this debate and in dealing with these kinds of issues. We all have an obligation to do that. I know members from all three parties will be doing that.

As I said at the outset, I am not here to seek the approval of the galleries; I am here to reflect the concerns I see in the people of my riding. I am proud to do that. I will do it when questions such as this arise and I feel they have to be spoken to. That pile of paper on the table says what the constituents of Cochrane South think about this legislation. The phone calls we have all had in the past month, and probably even before that, say what the people across this province think of this legislation.

I think it is ill advised. I think we should go back and vote against these amendments for all the reasons I have stated, and also to signal that the Attorney General has used this bill to send out a message of secular humanism that we are not prepared to accept in Ontario.

Mr. Reville: I want to speak today in favour of the amendment to the Human Rights Code. For many years, I have been aware of discrimination against homosexuals. I am pleased that the amendment has finally come before this House. It has been a long time in coming. I hope we will now rectify some of the wrongs done to homosexuals. Having listened with growing discomfort to the debate during the past few days, I am unable to predict what will happen. I can predict, however, what will happen if the amendment passes and what will happen if the amendment does not pass.

Whether the amendment passes or fails, there will be people of differing sexual orientation. Whether the amendment passes or fails, some families will be in crisis. Whether the amendment passes or fails, the birth rate will rise or fall, although I suspect it will fall, for reasons quite independent of sexual orientation. Whether the amendment passes or fails, there will be crimes committed by heterosexuals and there will be crimes committed by homosexuals, and society can expect that those crimes will be punished.

If the amendment succeeds, it will no longer be legal for a person to be a denied a job, a seat in a restaurant, an apartment or a mortgage simply because that person is, or is suspected of being, a homosexual. I regret to say other forms of discrimination will continue until our society becomes truly tolerant in its heart, not just in its codes. Judging by the speeches we have listened to, which speeches, I admit, do reflect real concerns, true tolerance is a long way from being a reality in our society.

I feel a bit like Sid Handleman's characterization of my good friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), whom the former minister describes as exhibiting weary impatience, born of long experience with losing battles.

As a child in the 1940s and 1950s, I was aware of the terrible prejudice against homosexuals. In our schoolyards, we kids used the hate words we learned from older children, who in turn learned them from adults. In 1963, however, I was confronted for the first time in my life with a real example of discrimination against homosexuals. At that time, I was the director of day camping for a small southwestern Ontario municipality. I received a phone call. The phone call was, as one might expect, anonymous.

The woman on the other end of the telephone wanted me to know that the assistant director of one of my camps was a homosexual. The woman wanted me to fire that individual. I took all this in and asked her whether she was concerned that the assistant director of a particular camp was going to harm the children. She said: "No. That is not the point. He is a homosexual and he must be fired." Clearly the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia was not important to my caller.

I have run in elections that were festooned with hate literature against homosexuals. In 1980 and 1982, I was targeted by Positive Parents. Its leader, a man named Stew Newton, used to refer to me as a member of the homosexual New Democratic Party caucus. I suffered the not-so-tender mercies of Campaign Life and Renaissance Ontario. I assume the reasons for such attention were (

a) my support of John Sewell in his mayoralty bid in 1980; (

b) my support of a call for an inquiry into the raids on the bathhouses in 1981; and (

c) my support for legislation prohibiting discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

15:40

I have talked to some of the young people I know, some of the teenagers. The hate words are still there in the schoolyards. When young people in our public schools and in our high schools want to describe something they do not think is good, they say, "That is really gay." When one inquires of these young people what they mean, one discovers that in fact they are not prejudiced against homosexuals but have learned this kind of hate talk somewhere and use it.

My daughter is 16 years old today. I will pass along the good wishes of the members to her. As I was fulminating around the kitchen about this debate, she offered me her advice. I find her advice very useful. She said to me, "They must be very afraid, which is why they are feeling so hateful." I thought about that. Perhaps she is right. I have encountered various kinds of prejudice in the work that I have done as a politician over many years.

One can often trace that prejudice, be it racial prejudice, religious prejudice, prejudice against people of differing sexual orientation or prejudice against disabled people for goodness' sake, back to some kind of fear, some kind of grieving that the world is changing and that the world sometimes seems out of control, some kind of hurt that this is so. The fear, the grieving and the hurt sometimes roll up into a ball of hate, because hate is a very focused thing. It is a very sharp thing.

I remember standing in front of crowds of angry people in some of the group home battles I was in. They did not want people whose behaviour they could not predict, and who might put at risk the stability they hoped they had in their lives, move on to their streets. Of course, what happened is that a year after the group home was in place everybody was just as happy as could be about it, because the fears they had had were not realized.

I do not believe the fears that people have about this amendment to the Human Rights Code will be realized.

Mrs. Marland: People have not had a chance to discuss this amendment.

Mr. Reville: The member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) has had her turn and does not want to repeat that exercise, I do not believe. This amendment will not require any one of the member's constituents to embrace homosexuality. It will not require any one of her constituents to change his moral views. It will require them to put aside their prejudice.

I do not believe this amendment will be a danger to children. I find that what children find most difficult about the world is deceit. Children have a very good appreciation of what hypocrisy is, because they see things with their eyes and then listen to adults, including their parents, explain to them what they do not see.

This amendment will not be a problem for children, because think this amendment will say we care about the human family. I know every homosexual is the child of someone; I know some homosexuals are the parents of someone; and I know they are the brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts and cousins of someone. I know that what they want to do is to get on with their lives. They do not want to spend all their energy fighting battles that the rest of us do not have to fight to get rights that the rest of us take for granted.

I applaud the courage of the gay rights activists. It is not pleasant to be a gay rights activist in our society. One is the target for all sorts of filth and abuse. Sometimes one is the target of real physical abuse. Therefore, I have to give the gay activists I know a great deal of credit for their courage.

One of the things about this debate is that it has often left me incredibly offended and ashamed to be part of a body of legislators that feels as reactionary as this body does. One of the things I have been proud of is the way some of my colleagues have dealt with this matter. I am particularly proud of my colleague on the front bench of our caucus, the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) -- not because she is on the right side of this issue, because I expected nothing less, but because of the calm, patient and loving way she has dealt with the people who have brought these concerns to her.

Rather than being hostile or defensive, she has patiently explained what the amendment does and what it does not do. She has explained it in terms of her own family and in terms of the love she has for her children and what she would feel and do if one of her children came to her one day and said, "Mom, I am a homosexual." I have been very moved by that and I have been very proud of her. To that extent, I have been proud of this Legislature.

I also have an unshakable belief in the resilience of the human spirit and I know that if this amendment does not pass this round, it will come back and that those who are in the pursuit of a tolerant society will prevail. That has helped me to deal with some of the feelings I have had about the debate.

As I listen to some of the unsubstantiated allegations that are contained in the mail we have all received and as I have puzzled over why a legislator would want to put those unsubstantiated allegations, slanders and libels into the record, I have found myself in danger of becoming hateful myself. That really does give one pause and one has to sit down and think: "What is it that is making me feel this way? How do we deal with intolerance if we become intolerant in the struggle to achieve tolerance?"

I must confess I have been very troubled by that. I can assume only that legislators feel it is their responsibility to put what their constituents say on the record, as it is. I would have preferred if they had added their own feelings, what they thought about such comments, because those of us who seek these positions of leadership are often called upon to explain things to people, to advocate on behalf of people on whose side, frankly, there are not often very many advocates.

The amount of misinformation and perhaps disinformation that has been put out on this matter is truly amazing. I hope that in most cases it is unintentional misinformation, but I suspect that in some cases it is not; it is what we in our jargoned-up society now call disinformation. I abhor that and all members of the Legislature must abhor that too. Why can we not show the leadership that is required? I hope we can do that, and I hope we do it pretty soon.

15:50

Ms. Caplan: I rise today to join in the debate on the proposed amendment to Bill 7. In this House we have heard the history of human rights legislation in this country and in this province. We have heard of the leadership shown in this House by previous Premiers and previous governments. Civil libertarians, humanitarians and civil rights activists share a common philosophy that is the basis of our legislative framework and in particular our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In this country we have enshrined in our charter the view that no law-abiding citizens should be discriminated against because they belong to or are perceived to belong to a certain group or class. We believe all law-abiding citizens are equal under the law. Our Human Rights Code in Ontario is a reflection of this belief, an explicit and implicit reminder.

Should anyone be denied shelter? Should anyone in our society be denied the opportunity to work? Should any taxpayer be denied those public services? When we ask ourselves these questions, the answer almost unequivocally is, of course not. Then why do we need this charter? Why do we need a Human Rights Code? Why have legislation at all? If our society lived by the oldest of our most treasured values, that golden rule, treat thy neighbour as thyself, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, we would not need that legislation; our charter and our legislation would be redundant. Sadly, as history has shown us, that is not the case.

The Attorney General spoke of signs displayed in our society 100 years ago. It was less than 100 years ago that we had those awful signs in this very city. We had restrictions on deeds and covenants. I know, because I saw them in my life as a title searcher and I saw them as a child some 35 years ago when I first learned to read. One generation ago, individual law-abiding citizens in this province had to change their names to get teaching jobs and had to leave this province to get an education. My aunt, an outstanding teacher, had to change her name to get a teaching job.

Another aunt, who wanted to become a nurse, had to leave this province to get her education. In those years, some businesses, even banks, had policies not to hire anyone, no matter how qualified, from certain groups and certain classes. Unfounded fear, prejudice, stereotypical perception and ugly caricatures created an unjust and unequal society.

We in this House cannot legislate an end to bigotry. We cannot legislate an end to prejudice. We can, however, make legislative statements and as legislators use this forum to tell the truth and expel unfounded fears. We should use this forum to promote the end of the discriminating barriers in our free society. We want a civilized and humane society that treats individuals, law-abiding, taxpaying, honest citizens, equally under the law. That has been our goal for many years, and progress has been slow. This debate -- and I say this with much sadness -- has not done that.

We all know or should know that we are not condoning, encouraging or supporting a lifestyle. This should not be a debate that morally evaluates the lifestyle of others. We are not here either to condone or to condemn. We are offering no special protection, no special treatment, no special favours.

From the letters and calls I have received opposing this proposed amendment, it is apparent that a common fear is that this amendment will give some special right to gay men and women. That is not true. At present, under the Ontario Human Rights Code, no person can be discriminated against with respect to employment, accommodation, contracts, goods, facilities and services because of race, creed, colour, sex, marital status, nationality, ancestry or place of origin of such person or class of person. This amendment simply assures that same protection to this class of persons.

Another common belief about this proposed amendment is that gay people could not be prevented from using their positions as teachers or as persons in authority to adversely influence those under their care. This amendment gives no such right. Any teacher can be fired for not following the prescribed course of study and anyone can be fired, in spite of the Human Rights Code, if he or she violates his or her job description or business code of conduct.

Another fear is that gay people might make sexual advances to those under their care and somehow have a right to make such advances. The Criminal Code of Canada is clear and provides severe penalties for any person, regardless of his or her sexual orientation, who makes sexual advances to a minor person. Conviction can lead to a long prison sentence.

The proposed amendment does not give homosexuals, lesbians or bisexuals any special right. It simply assures for them the human rights protection that we hope is enjoyed by all other people in our society: a right not to be denied accommodation, a right not to be denied a job, a right to all the public services for which they pay. It does not give them the right to ignore the Criminal Code.

Why would we deny them this, even if individually within this Legislature there are members who do not approve of or condone their lifestyle? I am not here to judge. This amendment does not threaten the sense of strong family values that I hold so dear, the values for which I have fought within our society. It seems to me if we are really a caring society, we would let all persons live where they choose and work where they are qualified.

By not being named in the Human Rights Code, these people are subject to documented discrimination and blackmail. Those of us who support this amendment are merely saying that no group of law-abiding citizens should be denied the basic human right to the services they pay for: the right to shelter and the right to work. That is all this says. It is false that this amendment will hurt anyone.

If this debate has shown us anything, it is that this amendment needs to pass. We have heard prejudice and unfounded fears articulated in this House. As legislators, we have a responsibility to try to explain to our constituents what this amendment will do and the fact that it will not harm anyone.

Denying any minority group these basic human rights does not enhance our traditional moral societal values. It not only mocks those values but also tarnishes all that we cherish in this land of freedom. Perhaps the day will come when other minority groups not currently listed will be identified. Perhaps they will be bureaucrats or journalists or politicians and thus require this kind of future clarification. That is really what we are doing: clarifying our Human Rights Code. We have said it all in our charter; our Ontario Human Rights Code just clarifies it. Hence, it is a reminder.

Being excluded from our code suggests an exemption that I believe was never intended to be the case. It is certainly not the case in our charter when it speaks of classes of persons.

16:00

The past human rights leadership in Ontario has been outstanding. The position of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has been clear and unequivocal. His government stands for human rights for all. We in this chamber either believe in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in assessment and evaluation on the basis of individual merit and competence, not on group discrimination, or we do not. I do. I applaud those in this Legislature who know this legislation is what it is and know it is not what it is not. I stand with those who have set aside partisan politics to champion the cause of human rights for all.

This proposed amendment was supported at committee by members of all three political parties. We have a responsibility as legislators, as lawmakers, to seek justice and encourage tolerance. If we do not -- and I stress, if we do not -- then we deserve the cynicism and the disrespect we get in return.

Mr. Andrewes: I wish at the outset to refer to some comments made by the Attorney General when he introduced this amendment. He argued that we as legislators in this province or in any other democracy must separate our moral views from what he refers to as governmental matters. He defended those comments with reference to John Kennedy when he met with the ministers in Houston and to the record of John Kennedy following his election as President of the United States. He defended his comments further with references to Governor Cuomo's autobiography.

The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) has referred to these comments and talked about them as secular humanism. My concerns are a bit more fundamental than those of the member for Cochrane South. When we stand in our ridings as candidates for election, go to candidate meetings, knock on people's doors, produce our literature and ask for people's support, we are judged on a wide set of criteria. Our constituents look at us and perhaps say they like our physical appearance, our history, our participation in community events, our idealism, our ideology or our affiliation with a political party.

There are many criteria against which a candidate's credibility is judged. One of those criteria may be the candidate's moral views. If we are to follow the argument of the Attorney General and separate ourselves from those moral views when we come to this chamber -- if we are to leave those moral views at the door of the chamber -- then we perpetrate a fraud on those very people who have given us the sacred trust when they elected us.

The member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan) was quite eloquent in her comments about what the amendment to

section 18 would do. She also dealt very clearly with her view of what the amendment would not do. If I can be a bit circumspect for a moment, I would say that in my view this amendment deals with tolerance. It speaks of our tolerance of people who have chosen a lifestyle in which two people of the same gender enjoy a loving relationship. That may fly in the face of our traditional Adam and Eve relationship, but in today's society, we know it exists.

I am a tolerant person. I believe people should be given the right to make those decisions in our society as long as they obey the law. However, in my view, this amendment is risky. In my view, it will give an excessive tolerance to one group at a risk of creating intolerance of the views of others. In his remarks, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) mentioned his own situation, in which he was having some difficulty in cont