Hansard Transcript 1986-Nov-25 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I am today laying upon the table the annual report of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario for the year ended March 31, 1986.

USE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICES

Mr. Sheppard: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am rising to make a statement regarding the incident brought to the attention of this House yesterday by a member of the third party with respect to a member of my Queen's Park staff, Miss Jan Larabie.

The majority of members believe in and support free enterprise. Jan is also a firm believer in free enterprise. Unfortunately, in her excitement she reacted indiscreetly and perhaps overzealously. I assure the House that I have looked into this incident thoroughly and appropriate action has been taken to ensure that further occurrences of this nature will not be repeated.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Gordon: My statement is addressed to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who is also Minister of Northern Development and Mines. At this time, I offer the Premier the following advice:

In the north, we are mystified about why he has taken the attitude that four-laning in northern Ontario will not occur until development exists in the various communities. Surely he recognizes that one of the key reasons people in southern Ontario have the kind of economy they have and the opportunity of their types of roads is four-laning. When this government came to power, it stopped four-laning Highway 400 just before Penetanguishene. This is a very negative approach to the north and it is one that is hurting us.

When one looks at Sudbury and sees the tourism potential, the potential for light manufacturing and parts, and the potential for the safety of northerners on the highway from Sudbury to Toronto, and thinks that the Premier, who is now the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, would not speak up for the residents of northern Ontario, it is absolutely shameful. I ask the Premier to reverse himself on this very negative attitude and begin four-laning Highway 400 to Sudbury.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. McClellan: On July 7, 1986, I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) a question about the treatment of two nurses by the staff of the Downsview rehabilitation centre of the Workers' Compensation Board.

In summary, the two nurses, Ms. Anne Fallis and Ms. Geraldine Kelly were discharged last June from the centre on political grounds rather than medical grounds. "They were discharged by medical staff of the centre as being medically fit to return to their regular occupations, despite the fact they were not given medical examinations as the basis of a discharge diagnosis.

They were discharged because, first, they had the audacity to raise questions with both the administrative staff and other patients at the centre about the adequacy of the so-called rehabilitation programs at the centre. As professional nurses, they were quite simply shocked at the lack of meaningful individualized rehabilitation programs. Second, they had distributed copies of a Toronto Star article containing some criticisms of the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario. The decision to discharge these patients prior to a normal medical examination is a shocking instance of a deep malaise at the Downsview rehabilitation centre.

Equally shocking is the failure of the Minister of Labour to honour his promise to this House to reply to my question, a promise made in July 1986. There is something rotten at the Downsview rehabilitation centre and the Minister of Labour appears to be trying to cover it up.

WAFERBOARD PLANT

Mr. Ramsay: In early June, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) asked Dr. Bob Rosehart to study the situation at the waferboard plant in Thunder Bay owned by Great Lakes Forest Products Ltd. This followed a series of discussions the Premier and other ministers had with company management and union representatives. The government's determination was to see whether all those involved would co-operate so that the plant could be reopened. Dr. Rosehart provided a progress report in mid-August, which was made public.

Now there is a further progress report, as some will have noted in an article in Monday's edition of the Thunder Bay Times-News. Dr. Rosehart has secured formal written agreement from the company and its three unions to proceed to the next steps in a process designed to result ultimately in a modernized and reopened plant. In addition, the process of ensuring an economical and sustained supply of wood for the mill is well in hand as a result of a recent meeting between Great Lakes and Ministry of Natural Resources staff.

There are other issues to be addressed. Some will involve a supportive role for government. I am confident the Premier will respond positively in such cases, recognizing not only the importance of the jobs at this plant but also the unprecedented display of flexibility and concern shown by those involved in the discussions at Thunder Bay. We have here the potential for an exciting breakthrough and we all hope the momentum achieved to date will carry this through to success.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Bernier: Now that Old Man Winter has begun to settle in across northern Ontario, living expenses are rapidly climbing higher and higher. It is a time when people have to let their cars, snowmobiles, tractors and other necessary vehicles run longer to warm up. It is a time when machinery runs less efficiently while working harder to overcome the excesses of temperature. It is a time when all fuel expenses run higher than anywhere else in Ontario.

In northern Ontario, one question is being asked again and again: where is that gas price equalization policy promised by this government? Surely all members remember the gas equalization policy so broadly announced from the depths of the Liberal campaign bus a full year and a half ago. We have to assume that they remember something about it, because they followed up the announcement with at least two of their now famous studies.

This government has had one and one half years to address this issue and to honour this promise to northern Ontario. Now that it has its hands on the purse-strings, why has the government flip-flopped again? Why is this government shirking its responsibilities by studying, rather than equalizing, escalating gas prices in northern Ontario? Another commitment to northern Ontario has been forgotten.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Wildman: Today we have tabled in the assembly the annual report of the Provincial Auditor. In items 4.3 and 4.6, we find that this new government is just more of the same. What is most alarming is the fact that in dealing with questions of inspections in the homes for the aged across the province or in funding health care, this government has failed to meet its responsibilities.

In the matter of the inspections of the homes for the aged, it appears the government does not believe those are its responsibility. It is going to leave them to the local authorities, even if they may not have the expertise to deal with things such as dietary inspections and health records inspections.

In terms of the funding for health care and public health agencies, the system is determined on a basis that means that if the local agency has a low base budget in the first place, it will continue to have it, even with the enrichment announced by the government. In other words, if communities in outlying areas are having a difficult time attracting professionals, and thus have to pay more, they do not have the funding, which makes it even more difficult for them to attract professionals and to meet the obligations they are to meet under the legislation.

It is most unfortunate that this government feels it cannot meet its own obligations and leaves it to the local authorities.

RESCUE OF SOVIET SOLDIERS

Mr. South: I would like today to give special recognition to the Kingston Whig-Standard for its part in the resourceful and dramatic rescue of the five Soviet soldiers from Afghanistan. This rescue and their acceptance by Canada have been done for humanitarian reasons.

It is simply amazing that a staff team from a small eastern Ontario community newspaper was able to do what the Canadian government could not or would not do. A team of Kingston Whig-Standard reporters and photographers managed to cross the border from Pakistan to Afghanistan. On this team were writer David Prosser, editor-reporter Jack Chiang and photographer Mark Pleasants.

This mission was successful; the Whig-Standard team interviewed and photographed the Soviet defectors, bringing back with them a written plea to Prime Minister Mulroney. As has been reported by the media, the Canadian government has now accepted these men and given them a hopeful future.

I am sure the House joins with me in saluting the Kingston Whig-Standard, Canada's oldest newspaper.

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

Mr. McCague: I want to bring to members' attention the passing yesterday of Kevin Denbok of Collingwood. Kevin suffered from cystic fibrosis throughout his 22 years and wanted to be a part of the solution. He was a good performer and a singer; so he made records that were given to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. He was able to raise more than $200,000.

I believe we should commend this very fine young gentleman.

GOVERNMENT'S PERFORMANCE

Mr. Philip: This government has talked about being an open government. It seems to be open only when it comes to giving away personnel records of its employees and the records of the taxpayers of Ontario. It has shown that it is inadequate when it comes to managing the province.

RELEASE OF REPORT

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I rise as a member of the select committee on health with a problem I consider to be an offence to my privilege as a member of that committee by the government and/or the government bureaucracy; I am not sure which.

On the last day the House sat in July, Mr. Speaker gave us the following reference, agreed to by all parties and passed unanimously in this Legislature: "That an interim report of the committee be submitted to the assembly not later than six months after the committee begins meeting."

We had planned to do so. Our first meeting was held in July. In August, we met with the two major ministries, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health, and asked them to provide us with information that would allow us to accumulate the data we needed so we could submit a report to the Legislature in December.

This morning our steering committee met and decided that because we have not received the information we need, there is no way we can report by the date which we have been ordered to report by this Legislature, by agreement of all members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this has been a deliberate strategy of members of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. To this point, we have received only four small documents from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. With reference to information from the Ministry of Health, it has deliberately failed to answer specific questions we raised in August when we asked for information.

I would like to read into Hansard an example of just one of many cases where it has not provided the information this committee needs to do its work. I raised the question of the licensing of homes for special care. I asked on August 26:

"What sort of licensing information do we have about homes for special care in comparison with the information we can get about nursing homes in terms of who are the operators, that whole listing of who owns what and what they have to go through to get a licence?"

Mr. Corder, the assistant deputy minister, responded: "I can provide you with that information, the whole tendering process. I can also get you a list of all the nursing homes in the province." Then I asked about homes for special care specifically, and he said: "I can indicate which nursing homes in the province also have a homes for special care licence. That information is available." He said he would give me lists of everything.

Instead, what we have received from the Ministry of Health, which makes it impossible for us to do our work, is the following: "Question: Which homes for special care are residential only? Of a total of 467 homes for special care in the province, 256 are residential homes and 211 are nursing homes."

We cannot do our work because the government over there is deliberately suppressing the information. Mr. Speaker, it was your order that we meet and report back to you and we are incapable of doing it. I want you to investigate it.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to the comments made by the member for Scarborough West. It appears to me that it is a matter sent from the House to a committee. Rather than being a point of privilege, I think the honourable member or any of the members of the committee could decide what type of report they would like to make to this House, and could make recommendations too; or the honourable member has the opportunity to ask the minister within the House at any time.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I think the point that needs to be stressed is that my colleague has raised the concern that his committee has been unable to follow an instruction of the House, which was to issue a report within six months' time. It has been unable to do it because of the systematic nonco-operation of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services in refusing to provide essential information. In my 12 years here, I have never seen such an example of systematic, flagrant nonco-operation with the work of a select committee. We are raising it here and asking you to intervene. I hope the head of the government will intervene as well and make sure that these servants of the House do their job.

Mr. Speaker: This is not the proper time to debate this matter. The member for Lincoln has a comment.

Mr. Andrewes: It is on the same point, Mr. Speaker. This committee was established after a great deal of fanfare by the government. The Legislature was very specific by the government's order that was brought into the House, which set a specific goal for the committee. I would not want to take exception to the remarks of my colleague in the New Democratic Party that it was a deliberate strategy, but those words are perhaps a bit too strong. However, I certainly support the member's views in principle that this committee cannot now meet the guidelines set out by this Legislature to bring in its interim report because the government has failed to supply the information. It has had plenty of time and it has had plenty of notice. That notice was specific and the request was specific.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened to the members carefully and I must reiterate, as Speakers have done on previous occasions, that matters arising in committees must be dealt with in committee and can, in turn, be dealt with by reporting to the House and then the House deals with the matter.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: I say to my honourable colleagues opposite that I was not aware of the issues they have raised. I will make sure the information they deem necessary is provided. I appreciate their bringing this to the attention of myself and the House.

13:49

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

THE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House that the government is undertaking an ambitious effort to revitalize Ontario's Development Corporations. As members are aware, these include the Ontario Development Corp., the Northern Ontario Development Corp., the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. and Innovation Ontario Corp. Together they form the Development Corporations.

In the May 1986 budget, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced that the Ontario Development Corp. would be reorganized to improve the delivery of assistance to small business. Today's announcement fulfils that budget commitment.

As members will agree, the Development Corporations play a vital role in the economy of Ontario, particularly in northern and eastern Ontario. However, the effectiveness of the accountability of the corporations has declined over the years.

The Provincial Auditor has consistently raised concerns about the operations and structure of the corporations since the late 1970s. Particular concerns relate to diffused loan accountability and monitoring effectiveness of lending operations. As a result of these and other problems, the corporations are not realizing their full potential.

The corporations' revitalization plan represents a comprehensive solution to problems that have existed since the mid-1970s. The plan's implementation, which is well under way, involves four key components.

First, regional lending operations will be expanded with the establishment of regional offices. This will significantly improve program delivery and client accessibility to the corporations.

Second, the corporations will consolidate and restructure lending operations to streamline loan approvals and administration and to improve loan accountability and supervision.

Third, the modernization of the corporations' information technology will increase productivity and speed up program delivery. Better information technology will also improve the corporations' ability to monitor the effectiveness of lending operations.

Fourth, the corporations will implement a human resource development strategy to upgrade skills and enhance financial advisory services to business.

These changes will complement the new initiatives undertaken by the corporations over the past year, including the new ventures and Innovation Ontario programs.

This revitalization plan has been given a very high priority. Corporations' staff, clients and boards have all played an active role in the development of the new organization.

As I earlier noted, the Development Corporations play a vital role in the economic life of this province. I am confident these changes will have a significant and long-lasting benefit by improving the economic development opportunities available to all communities and regions in Ontario.

Mr. Brandt: I have a brief comment with respect to the statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who is now absent.

I find all too often the statements of the minister are statements of change for the sake of change and without a great deal of substance. I have not been disappointed today. The minister indicates very little by way of strengthening the services that were previously offered by ODC. There is still too much bureaucracy the minister has not addressed. The waiting period is too long in terms of applications for loans, and the qualifications that are required to qualify for loans for small business purposes have not been addressed in this report at all.

I guess the only reason we have a statement today is that the minister and his ministry were chastised in the auditor's report for lack of control in some respects as they relate to the operations of ODC.

I suggest the minister has a long way to go before he gets a handle on that ministry and on that specific function within his ministry.

Mr. Barlow: On the statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, it is good to see, as my colleague has already pointed out, that the minister continues playing checkers with the ministry, moving personnel from one office to another. I hope that expanding the offices is not going to dilute the ability of that ministry to achieve some of the things it has set out to do and what it is mandated to do.

I am sure this initiative will be welcomed by the member for Wellington-South (Mr. Ferraro) and the committee of parliamentary assistants, which has set up one program, the new ventures program. I see this as one of the initiatives to administer that program. I am sure it will help that committee in its deliberations.

Mr. Philip: The statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is filled with contradictions. On page 2, he says he recognizes that the Provincial Auditor has constantly raised concerns about the operation and structure of the corporation since 1970. Further down in his proposed changes, however, he does not respond to those essential concerns that are tabled today in the report of the Provincial Auditor.

We have seen how the taxpayers' money has been squandered by this corporation and many questionable investments. The auditor has correctly pointed out that key criteria on which loan decisions were made, such as sales and profit forecasts and management ability were not critically reviewed, and unfavourable evaluations of loan applications were either in conflict with other evaluations or completely ignored in the approval process. Nowhere in this statement do we see the government coming to grips with that squandering of the taxpayers' money.

Furthermore, if one looks at the recommendations he is proposing, one sees that they are contradictory. The first one proposes that there be a decentralization. He says the regional lending operations will be expanded with the establishment of regional offices. Then, as his second point, he talks about how the corporations will consolidate and restructure lending operations to streamline loan approvals in administration and improve loan accountability and supervision.

You cannot have centralization on one hand, decentralization in the next statement and have a coherent statement. This statement is simply incoherent. It is a statement made for the sake of making a statement.

If the minister had the kindness to stay and wait for the responses to his statement, he might have been able to say why he did not respond to the legitimate concerns raised by the Provincial Auditor in his report concerning the operation and mismanagement of ODC.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to add some comments to my colleague's on the statement that has been made today by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with respect to the Ontario Development Corp.

I cannot understand why he would take the time to come in here for five minutes to make a statement of no substance whatsoever and then leave the House. The statement says they are going to try to revitalize these corporations. The four-point plan is a nonstatement.

The first point is that the plan is to decentralize offices by going to more regional offices. The second point suggests just the opposite in terms of streamlining and consolidating the operations.

I have concerns about the direction of this corporation, particularly with respect to northern Ontario. Over the past two years, the Northern Ontario Development Corp. has come short of its budget allocations. While the Ontario Development Corp. has been allocating more than its budget commitments in estimates, both the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. and NODC have been starved for funds.

The commitment of this government to northern Ontario has not been evidenced at all in the management of the Ontario Development Corp. It is about time that NODC in particular was put to some use in northern Ontario and used to stimulate the northern Ontario economy by increasing the allocation of funds to the north, rather than reducing the level of funding for business development in northern Ontario.

MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET DIRECTIVES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am pleased to announce that Management Board is today issuing a new set of management policies, which I now table.

The policies, to be known as Management Board of Cabinet Directives, succeed the Ontario Manual of Administration, volume 1, in establishing corporate practices for the administration of goods, services, equipment, employee expenses, information technology and agencies, plus a variety of management functions such as internal audit, expenditure management and manpower management and control.

These directives apply to all ministries and schedule I agencies of the Ontario government and in particular instances to schedule II and schedule III agencies.

The directives represent the first major revision to the government's corporate policies in more than a decade. Overall, the new directives place more authority for the administration of government in the hands of deputy ministers and their delegates, which we believe is where it should be.

Of course, those with authority must demonstrate that they have acted responsibly. To this end, Management Board has issued a directive that defines the accountability of the deputy head of each ministry and that of Management Board for the administration of the Ontario government.

The directives are prefaced by corporate values that underpin the development of all management policies. The values are excellence in service to the public, employees as a critical resource and excellence in management. These simple yet enduring qualities provide managers with a basis upon which to make every administrative decision.

The directives and guidelines will be distributed early in December to managers throughout the public service. Copies are available to all members of the House, and I have sent a complete set to the offices of the House leaders and the critics for Management Board.

Mr. Philip: I would like to respond briefly to the statement of the acting Chairman of Management Board. As members know, we in the standing committee on public accounts have been asking for this statement for some time. We will be looking with considerable interest at the specifics when we have a chance to read them.

The Provincial Auditor commented in his report that the manual and some of the practices and policies remained to be reviewed. We will be looking at how the acting Chairman of Management Board is proceeding with that review and whether he will be following the Provincial Auditor's recommendations and the recommendations of the standing committee on public accounts in this regard.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE TOURISM MARKETING

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am pleased to announced today a tourism marketing program that is the first of its kind in Ontario.

My ministry's Ontario French-language marketing program is directed specifically to French-speaking Ontarians. I am pleased that we will spend $400,000 on this program over the next four months. We are doing so because it is good business, in keeping with our continuous effort to expand our markets.

We will reach people we have never reached before: people who already feel a tremendous pride for this province and who are eager to explore more of it. We will tell French-speaking Ontarians, en français, about the exciting vacation possibilities that exist chez nous. We are using our marketing dollars wisely. We have targeted those regions where we can reach the most Franco-Ontarians for the dollars spent.

This unique program also ties into and builds on our Quebec marketing efforts. We have already expanded our French telephone inquiry service and produce French-language hospitality kits. We have also hired more bilingual travel counsellors. In fact, the majority of full-time travel counsellor positions across Ontario are now designated bilingual. A French version of the Traveller's Encyclopaedia, our flagship publication, will be ready by March 1987.

Ours is a beautiful province, and I am proud that my ministry and our government are directly encouraging all Ontarians to see and visit more of Ontario the Irresistible.

Mr. Rowe: In response to the minister's statement regarding the Ontario French-language tourism marketing program, there are a few points I would like to make.

Let me be clear: while our party applauds any efforts to enhance our markets, especially to our French-speaking Ontarians, I remind the minister he is not announcing a first. We started advertising in French in Quebec and Ontario years ago with respect to bilingualism. We started hiring bilingual personnel in our provincial parks and in other tourist facilities. We sent bilingual personnel to market Ontario tourism in Montreal and in Quebec years ago.

There were French services before the minister arrived, so he should not sit there and tell us he is announcing a first, because he is not.

Mr. Hayes: I want to make some comments on the announcement of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I would like to compliment the minister for reaching out to French-speaking Ontarians. At the same time, I would be remiss in not reminding him that there are many areas right in his own backyard here at Queen's Park that are not bilingual. I hope he will look into that.

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM

Hon. Ms. Munro: I rise today to announce a major initiative of the Royal Ontario Museum. At the same time, I would like to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the chairman, board of directors, staff and supporters of the museum for undertaking this important venture.

The Royal Ontario Museum is a source of great pride to Ontario. It is a facility of international repute, whose exhibits and artefacts are enjoyed by more than two million people annually. Yesterday, I had the privilege of being with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) at the museum when he announced the launch of the Future Fund Today, a $25-million endowment campaign that will allow the museum to remain highly competitive and retain its world-class stature.

Thanks to a highly successful gallery development campaign, the ROM has a sparkling superstructure worthy of highlighting its treasures. The Future Fund Today will enable the ROM to display exciting and significant new collections in those galleries. The ROM will therefore truly be a pre-eminent cultural institution. Both inside and out, both in form and in content, the ROM will be unsurpassed.

The Future Fund Today will reach this goal through three main avenues. First, the fund will enable the museum to acquire new collections as they become available. This is highly appropriate to take advantage of the ROM's new display capacities. It is also essential if the ROM is to remain in the forefront of cultural institutions.

Second, the fund will allow the museum's professional archaeologists to excavate new collection objects. This as well is critical if the ROM is to remain a valued anthropological resource.

Finally, the Future Fund Today means the ROM will be able to expand its research activities. Both newly discovered and longer-standing collection objects will reveal their secrets to the ROM's researchers and expand the body of human knowledge and awareness.

Another benefit of the fund will be an improvement in and expansion of the museum's educational programs and library facilities, making the museum even more accessible to the people of Ontario.

The Royal Ontario Museum is a sterling example of a beneficial partnership between government and the private sector. The ROM is an institution for the people of Ontario, and the dedication and caring of the people of Ontario have made the ROM great. The ROM is a reflection of their determination, spirit and generosity.

The Future Fund Today will make the Royal Ontario Museum even better. I urge my colleagues and the people of Ontario to join in supporting the Future Fund Today.

Mrs. Marland: While I am happy to join the Minister of Citizenship and Culture in her commendation of the Royal Ontario Museum and the hundreds of volunteers who helped, I have to say that this statement says nothing.

I find it very interesting that the Premier is now attending functions to launch other people's campaigns. This would be an exciting statement if the government were coming up with some money. It is talking about a $25-million endowment campaign, but it is not saying anything about its support of the ROM.

The statement that the ROM will be unsurpassed is a misnomer. I would like to state very clearly that the ROM is unsurpassed today, and one of the reasons for that is that through the 1970s and 1980s our government gave it more than $100 million. We did not stand by while the chairman announced fund-raising campaigns.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think I am on a point of order, but you may rule it a point of privilege. I will bow to your judgement in that.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) has made a statement in the Legislature. His seat has been vacant during the time for responses and leading into question period. We know where he is. He has served notice that he is meeting with officials of Goodyear, along with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye).

I am not sure it is against the standing orders, but it definitely shows contempt of this Legislature that two ministers, one of whom presumably is already at the meeting, have scheduled when the meeting will take place and have timed it intentionally, it appears to us, so as not to be here for question period. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology left that meeting, quite properly sending the Minister of Labour to carry on for a time, only to make a statement and then ran out; so he was not here for responses to the statement. I am not sure whether it is against the standing orders, but I suggest it shows contempt and it is rude.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing makes a point. It is not a point of order and it is not a point of privilege. However, it is a point of view, and I am sure the member will find some minister to ask some question of during the question period.

14:10

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Grossman: In the unaccountable and unusual absence of both the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) in the face of the Goodyear situation, I have a question for the Treasurer and Minister of Economics.

It appears from the press this morning and from our contact with Mayor Bruce Sinclair's office in Etobicoke that the mayor asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology whether he would do an economic development study of the Lakeshore area. Our understanding from the mayor's office is that the minister refused that request. Can the Treasurer explain why the minister refused that request?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to respond to the preamble from the Leader of the Opposition. He should be aware that the two ministers who are absent from their places this afternoon are meeting right now with the president of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., who has come with some of his senior executives from Akron, Ohio, to Toronto to consult on this important matter.

The presence of all ministers in the House is desirable, but these executives are making themselves available on short notice, although we do not thank them for it because we required their attendance and they are here. The ministers are dealing with them at this time, and I hope some useful information will come out of that meeting.

In answer to the specific question asked, I was not aware that a request had come from the mayor of Etobicoke for an economic analysis of the Lakeshore area. I would be glad to consult with the two ministers concerned to see what information we can provide or what initiative we can take to satisfy the requirements of that community.

Mr. Grossman: Our information was that they had not requested anything but a study and that the minister had said no. My question related to the refusal by the minister.

I also want to say that some of us on this side have been in a similar situation of having meetings conflicting with the House, but in my experience, the officials from Akron, Ohio, or wherever, surely would have understood had the minister said that pursuant to our system, they would have to wait 10 or 15 minutes so that the ministers could answer questions in the Legislature. That not only might have been appropriate but also --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: --it might have been an opportunity for the minister to emphasize to those officials the degree to which this is a serious public matter such that he has to report to the House and defer the start of the meeting, at least in terms of his presence, for five or 10 minutes.

On April 11, 1985, on an occasion I am sure the Treasurer will remember, while his leader was campaigning as Leader of the Opposition during the election campaign and visiting the Burns Meats plant, his leader said that if he was elected he would make available expertise from the ministry to conduct feasibility studies and, when needed, provide interim funding until private financing or worker equity could be raised.

Given the fact that all the information indicates that this is a profitable operation, can the Treasurer give the House a commitment this afternoon, which the minister may take to that meeting, that he would be willing to provide all interim funding necessary until a new purchaser for this fine company can be found?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will respond briefly to the lengthy introductory comment the Leader of the Opposition made to his question. I am sure he will recall that yesterday, at the behest of the official opposition, the House adjourned its regular business to deal with the important matter of the Goodyear closure announcement.

I indicated at that time that the ministers would have an opportunity to meet with the American officials and would have information available if the debate were held today. The official opposition insisted on adjourning the business yesterday, and in spite of the fact that it was an extremely important debate, on two occasions or at least one, there was a quorum call and there were only two Conservatives in their places. For the Leader of the Opposition to criticize my two colleagues for not being present in the House when they are at this moment meeting with the president of Goodyear is highly irregular and irresponsible, in my view.

The government will do everything it can to discuss this with the people at Goodyear. We hope we can provide whatever analysis will be effective. I look forward to hearing from the two ministers when they have an opportunity to report to the House.

Mr. Grossman: The Treasurer may have considered an amendment with regard to sexual orientation, which the government has been afraid to bring forward for five months, to be more important yesterday than the Goodyear closing, but in this party we considered the Goodyear closing to be more urgent yesterday than the sexual orientation motion which the government has kept off Orders and Notices for several months. The government did not have the courage to bring --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member take his seat? Does the member have a final supplementary?

Mr. Grossman: Can the Treasurer tell us whether he has equipped his minister, who has skipped question period to have the meeting with the Goodyear people, with the information that the government will be happy to make available land out of the government's land bank for the possible construction of a new Goodyear plant and facilities?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have not.

We should bear in mind that the announcement came last Friday. It seemed sensible to us that the debate on the matter might take place after all the facts were available today, perhaps tomorrow after we had a chance to meet with the officials. I have not been requested to provide money for land or anything like that because it seems reasonable that we should have all the facts and have an opportunity to discuss it both in the House and as a government.

Mr. Grossman: By the time the Treasurer gets around to doing anything, the Goodyear plant and all the options will be gone.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs. I know he will have had a chance to read the Provincial Auditor's report. With regard to homes for the aged in this province, the auditor reports that the frequency and scope of inspection activities were not specified, that actual inspections were infrequent and that results of inspections and follow-up of deficiencies noted were poorly documented.

I know the minister has also seen the report of 41 files that were looked at by the auditor, whose report found that in 39 of the 41 cases reviews in the dietary area were absent; fire inspection reports were absent in 31 cases; no independent nursing reviews or level of care reviews were present in 25 cases; no annual medical reports in 17; and no building maintenance reports in 13 of the 41.

I am sure the minister will agree that is a rather frightening situation and I wonder what he plans to do about it.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition realizes that the immediate responsibility for homes for the aged and, as a matter of fact, for charitable homes is under the Minister of Community and Social Service (Mr. Sweeney). I will gladly share the question the member has posed with him.

It is important to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that if he takes a moment or two to look at our white paper called A New Agenda, he will realize I have some responsibility. I would like to quote a line or two from that to point out what my responsibility is.

On page 17, it says as follows, "We will undertake a major revision and rationalization of the extended care program and also address complementary issues in adjacent services such as residential care and rest homes." What this means in so many words is that we are going to write a new extended care act that will cover the Nursing Homes Act, the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act and the Charitable Institutions Act.

14:20

Mr. Grossman: The auditor refers to the process that the minister has referred to, which is yet another one in a series of promises that those people make over there. It says there that up until the time of the auditor's work, no formal guidelines had been issued to establish the extent and frequency of inspections. The auditor says, "We were advised by senior officials that guidelines had not been issued because of a study being carried out on the accountability relationships between the ministry and its agencies receiving grants."

We know the excuse that is being given for not putting guidelines in place. Is the minister prepared to have all of the senior citizens' residences go uninspected, without guidelines and without reviews of their dietary situation, until he finally brings in legislation changing the relationship, or is he going to do something to protect them in the meantime?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: The member well knows, as a former cabinet minister, that there are many times when one works co-operatively with one's colleagues in cabinet. That is certainly what we are about now that we have formed the government.

I submit that we are no longer going through the turf wars that those fellows over there went through when they were running the ship. It is our intent to develop a single improved act that will apply to all providers and establish uniform criteria in such areas as inspection services, programming, staffing, quality of care and physical plant standards.

Mr. Grossman: That statement of good intention really does nothing for the senior citizens who are currently in more than 100 uninspected homes. There are 130 homes without guidelines and without any review whatsoever of their dietary situation. Those kinds of answers, and promises that when the minister gets around to co-operating and gets new legislation he hopes to be able to do something about it, are a serious abdication of his responsibility today to the seniors who are in those homes.

I do not dispute the minister's good intentions. My simple question is whether his government is happy and content to leave the current situation in place until he gets about the new changes, or is he going to take some action today to put in place a complete inspection program for those seniors?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: The Leader of the Opposition will recall that the guidelines to which he is referring in all three questions are guidelines that were issued and supposedly acted upon in 1983. It is my information that nothing happened with the previous government implementing those guidelines.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier relating to the report of the Provincial Auditor. The Provincial Auditor not only indicts the government for its failure to inspect homes for the aged, but he even notes that something as basic as trust money, money deposited on behalf of seniors, is not being adequately protected. The health and safety of seniors are not being adequately protected. There is a devastating indictment of the Ministry of Labour and of its failure to inspect and to provide adequate health and safety, of the fact that workers are being killed because inspections are not taking place. There is a devastating indictment of the inspection of public health and of the way in which public health is administered.

I wonder whether the Premier can answer this: why does the government remain so profoundly unconcerned about the health and safety of its older people, the health and safety of its workers and the health and safety of all its citizens, who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of programs, that this kind of indictment, a year and a half after it came to power, can still be made by the Provincial Auditor?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have just had a very brief briefing on what is in the auditor's report. As the honourable member knows, it came down about five or 10 minutes before we came into the House. I am aware in general terms that a number of those suggestions and/or allegations were made. I want to assure the member that I take them extremely seriously. I am not in a position to respond to the specific details in the report, but I take it seriously, as do my colleagues, and we will be acting on the basis of this information.

Mr. Martel: Today the Provincial Auditor reiterated what I have been saying to the guardian of the swamp now for a year and a half, that the haphazard method of inspecting is costing serious injury, loss of time and even loss of life. The official response from the Ministry of Labour is to circle the wagons, as it usually does. Let me quote:

"The division seriously questions whether it is appropriate to `second-guess' the assigning of inspection cycles by division staff experienced in matters of health and safety."

If the staff are so good, why do we have an ever-increasing, escalating number of accidents and an almost daily fatality in this province? Is this not really what is going on in the Ministry of Labour, what the inspectors themselves call crisis management, because there are not enough inspectors to do the job properly?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I respect my honourable colleague's knowledge of this matter and the fact that he has raised this in this House for a considerable number of years. The member will be aware that there is a review of this entire aspect of the ministry, which he refers to in different terms. However, I assure him I take his comments and the comments of the auditor very seriously. I cannot give him a detailed response, but I know the ministry will be in a position to give him one, l hope in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The Premier is probably aware that homes for the aged in this province are a line budget item of well in excess of $200 million, yet his ministry, in response to the auditor's report, has said the following:

"As regards the area of inspection procedures, in our view, responsibility and accountability for the day-to-day management of homes, client care and outcomes, program quality and effectiveness rests with the boards of management and boards of directors" of those homes.

That is an old Tory policy, which leaves a total lack of accountability to the prime budget control, which is the Premier. Is the Premier going to stick with that policy, or is he going to change it and put in proper inspection procedures, which in this case do not even match the inadequate ones we have for nursing homes?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me assure my honourable colleague that we are not wedded to the past in any way. Indeed, when we assumed office, we were tackling a number of problems, as he is very well aware. He can argue that we have not made enough progress in some areas, and perhaps in some areas his criticism is justified.

However, I want my colleague, and the auditor -- and I take this very seriously -- to be fair-minded about this as well. If he will refer to the auditor's report, I will quote it to the honourable member for his information:

"In the past year we have observed a concerted effort on the government's part to consider and implement the study's recommendations. There has been a renewed emphasis on accountability relationships, and administrative policies and practices are undergoing thorough review and revision. Greater attention has been focused on values in the working environment and on executive planning and development."

What the auditor says -- and there are criticisms; there always will be -- is that there are problems which this government has shown a determination to try to wrestle with fundamentally. I value the member's advice and the advice of my colleagues opposite, as well as that of the auditor in dealing with these questions.

Mr. Rae: The question was whether inspections were going to start. We have to start talking about 43.5 years of Tory government.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Attorney General with respect to equal pay. He is another minister who has made a point of talking about how long people are going to have to wait for justice.

The minister will no doubt be aware of the law and of the delays contained therein. I would like to ask him to consider a hypothetical smaller plant. He will know that more and more employees are working in smaller operations rather than in large operations.

In a work place with 25 workers where 10 men make $17,000 a year each and 15 women make $14,000, with pay adjustments based on one per cent of the preceding year's payroll, if it were determined they were doing work of equal value, on top of overall wage increases of four per cent a year, it will take 12 years to eliminate the gap between men's and women's wages, which means that under the minister's bill they will have to wait 12 years plus six years, which means 18 years.

Why should the women of Ontario who work in this kind of plant have to wait 18 years for equal pay for work of equal value?

14:30

Hon. Mr. Scott: The question is like the questions that used to appear in the mathematics column in the Globe and Mail, where you were asked whether you could answer the conundrum. I will take notice of the question and determine the answer at the earliest possible moment.

While I am on my feet, I should respond to a point made by the honourable member yesterday. He was concerned about figures. I have inquired into the matter, and it appears that 57.8 per cent of the female work force in Ontario will be covered by pay equity three years following proclamation.

Mr. Davis: It is 57 per cent. What about the other --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What? What?

Mr. Davis: --43 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is our Education critic.

Mr. Davis: You were not fast enough to tell me how many will not be covered.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is great to be able to smile once in a while, but now perhaps we can have a supplementary.

Mr. Rae: I appreciate the chance to ask a supplementary of the Attorney General.

Mr. Mancini: How did the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) count the collection on Sunday?

[Laughter]

Mr. Rae: The Liberals can laugh, but the fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of women will be waiting until well into the 21st century before they will receive equal pay under the law the Attorney General has proposed today.

I would like to ask the Attorney General about those other tens of thousands of women who are not covered because they are working in areas dominated by women. Under the proposed legislation, they are not able to make any comparisons whatsoever. The Attorney General will be aware that nursing home workers were able to benefit from an arbitration decision that allowed them to compare their wages with the wages of hospital workers. That is how they were finally able to get some increases.

Why should nursing home workers, hospital workers and day care workers working in the public sector for organizations funded by the province and the people of Ontario have to be satisfied with a simple study by the Pay Equity Commission, which we all know is a pseudonym for doing absolutely nothing for those women at the lowest end of the wage scale?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Our bill was not that badly received. The Equal Pay Coalition referred to it as a "positive response." The Canadian Union of Public Employees, usually a firm supporter of the third party, called it a "bold initiative." The president of the Ontario division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees called it a "bold step forward."

None of those people thinks the bill is perfect. I do not think it is perfect. I highlighted in my statement yesterday the problem presented by a job comparison system where there are units in which no comparisons can be made physically. That is a real problem presented by any pay equity proposal. I indicated we were going to study that for the purpose of canvassing the number of solutions that can be made. I also indicated the canvass and the determination of how we would respond to it would be made in time to assure people in those groups get wage adjustments as members in other groups of the same size get wage adjustments.

I do not pretend for a moment that perfection is found in our responses. I know where perfection is found, because I am told about it almost every second day. The only person who has dumped on this bill is the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), who dumps on everything. The reality is that the bill is a major, important initiative. We are looking forward to positive suggestions about the solution.

For example, with respect to the problem that the honourable member raises, I look forward not to a strident --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Gigantes: I want to ask the minister responsible for women's issues how a woman who is 50 years old, who works in a firm with 20 people in it and who is looking forward to retirement and a small pension can get anything out of this bill when she will have to wait for six years after her retirement for this bill to take effect.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If she is going to retire today and if she is operating in a business that has fewer than 49 employees, adjustments will not begin until six years; the honourable member is correct. On the other hand, if she is working in the broader public sector, adjustments, and possibly complete payout, will take place in two years.

I am conscious of the concerns raised by the honourable members of the third party. I wish they would stop asking me about pay equity, because I want the Conservatives to start asking these questions.

Mr. Davis: Don't ask him any questions.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No. I came to question period today anxious to respond to the honourable members' questions, but I came here today to see whether there was any chance that we could glean where the official opposition stands on this bill.

My honourable friend the member for Ottawa Centre has been on television and on radio expressing her comments and issuing press releases, and so have we; but there has not been a peep out of the official opposition. I would like to know where they stand.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) would like to ask a question, if you would allow that. We will wait, though.

Mr. Pope: We now have an Attorney General who does not want to be asked questions, let alone answer them. That is pretty good: no doors or windows.

LAYOFFS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Pope: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister will be aware of the announcement yesterday of layoffs at Kimberly-Clark in Terrace Bay. He will also be aware of the recent announcement of layoffs by the Grenville Martin lumber mill in Sault Ste. Marie, the layoffs at the Dubreuil Brothers mill in Dubreuilville and many others across northern Ontario.

Can the minister tell me how many ministers met with the officials of these companies, when those meetings took place and where they took place?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That question would be difficult to answer, and I will take it --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Why does the part-time member find it surprising that I would have to look up the dates when we met with every one of the people described by him? I am fully prepared to bring that man up to date because he is not here often enough to know what goes on. I am very willing to examine my records.

I have to tell the assembly that more people in the business that relates to timber, lumber and wood products have come through the Ministry of Natural Resources office in the past two years than went through that office in the past 10 years; so I will get that information.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Maybe we could just calm down a little bit.

Mr. Pope: The workers of northern Ontario wish this minister were not there at all on any day, because he has done absolutely nothing to protect them over the past six months.

I want to know why this government has a different standard when it comes to layoffs here in Toronto at Goodyear as compared to layoffs in northern Ontario. When is the government going to do something for the northern Ontario workers?

14:40

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The people of northern Ontario have never been better represented than by this government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the minister would take his seat. Would the members show a little respect?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The people of northern Ontario have never been better represented than by this government, the government of this day. That is precisely what I said. I hope the member examines Hansard to see whether that was not precisely what I said the first time.

I will tell the members one thing that is very important. The present government does not go up to northern Ontario and tell northerners one thing and come back to Toronto and say something else, which is precisely what members opposite do. There have never been more conscious initiatives taken for the people of northern Ontario than by the present government, and that will continue for many more years to come.

DRUG PRICING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Does he stand by a letter he wrote earlier this year? I will quote the first paragraph:

"In response to your letter dated February 11, 1986, regarding changes to the Patent Act, it seems only fair that research-based companies in the pharmaceutical industry who expend large amounts of moneys for research in developing new drugs should be able to recoup their moneys through a patent protection for at least 12 years."

Is that the position of the Liberal government in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That letter was written to Joseph Warner last February. When I visited Hecla Island in September 1985 for a ministerial conference, I stated the position of this government very clearly to the then minister, Michel Côté. I attended another meeting in Thunder Bay in September 1986 and again delivered a very clear message on the government's position to Harvie Andre. I stand by that position.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am not sure what the minister stands by, whether it is the letter or the nonposition he has stated in the House today. Can he tell us exactly whether he supports the position of our party, that the Tories are trying to increase the price of drugs to consumers in this province? The present legislation saves them $225 million a year. If this plan is passed federally, consumers in this province will have to pay $100 million a year extra as new drugs come out.

What is the position of the Liberal Party? Is it that of the letter the minister wrote in February, which is very clear, or is it some other position he is referring to now?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The position is very clear. At the very minimum, we support Mr. Eastman's report that it be to a maximum of four years.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Why did you write the letter?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Unfortunately, that letter was written by a constituent representative.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call for a supplementary.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Offer: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. A radio report this morning indicated that many thousands of gallons of ethylene glycol are being sprayed on airplanes, to deice them, by Air Canada at Lester B. Pearson International Airport. I also understand this chemical is being filtered through Metro Toronto's waterways and ultimately into Lake Ontario. First, is the minister aware of this; and second, is it acceptable that this practice be carried on?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is the airport in the member's riding?

Mr. Mackenzie: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am getting instruction from the member for Hamilton East, who wishes he were the Speaker.

In answer to the member's specific question, I am surprised that Air Canada, which is a federal crown corporation, carries out this practice of simply wasting the antifreeze it puts on its planes in winter for the purpose of deicing the wings. First, it is an environmentally unacceptable procedure in my view; and second, since the federal government --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Obviously the Conservatives do not consider this to be important.

Second, because the federal government and its agencies appear to be very interested in saving money, I think that in addition to being concerned about this environmentally sloppy practice, they should also be concerned that they are wasting a lot of their antifreeze. It is my understanding that in other airports where Environment Canada has undertaken certain studies, they are able to recover this. I think that has happened at the Mirabel airport, for instance. I find it environmentally unacceptable. We have made contact with the federal Department of Transport and Environment Canada.

Mr. Offer: I understand the practice. Keeping in mind that the airport is within federal jurisdiction and that this deicing is being done by Air Canada, I wonder whether the Minister of the Environment is planning to do anything with respect to this deposit of ethylene glycol in the waterways.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There is a relatively simple solution to the problem. All they have to do, particularly when dealing with the large volumes of antifreeze they put on the planes, is to construct gutters and recovery tanks to collect the material. They would not have to allow it to go into the storm sewers and ultimately into the lake.

DRUG PRICING

Mr. Andrewes: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In his capacity as the guardian of consumers on drug pricing, he has left us somewhat confused. His letter, although perhaps not intentionally, leaves us guessing and is a bit misleading. I wonder what position the minister expressed to Mr. Andre and other federal ministers on the issue of drug price protection.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The response was clear and unequivocal. We opposed what they were doing. We opposed the granting of a period of exclusivity in excess of four years. In my conversations with him, we actually recommended that it be less than that. As a matter of fact, I would say we were the chief opponent at the meetings at Hecla Island and the meetings in Thunder Bay.

14:50

Mr. Andrewes: Why did the minister say in his letter to Mr. Andre, "It seems only fair that research-based companies in the pharmaceutical industry who expend large amounts of money for research in developing new drugs should be able to recoup their moneys through patent protection for at least 12 years" -- not 10 years as was said in the legislation, but 12.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is in error. The letter was not sent to Mr. Andre; it was sent to a Mr. Warner in February and the letter was composed by one of my --

Mr. Andrewes: You signed the letter. It is on your letterhead.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is a very significant difference. So what? It is a very significant difference. He is talking about a letter to a minister of the crown and I am talking about a letter to a constituent.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Premier. As leader of the Liberal Party, in return for our support in allowing him to form a government in Ontario, he signed an accord. One of the specific items in that accord reads as follows, "Reform of job security legislation, including notice and justification of layoffs and plant shutdowns and improved severance legislation." Had we had that, it might have helped in the Goodyear situation. Can the Premier tell me where the legislation on this item is right now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member reminds me of discussions that took place some 16 to 18 months ago. They are worth celebrating on this occasion. I think he has found that this government does what it says it will do. They are the kinds of things we discussed in the last campaign and subsequent to that. I know my friend opposite would like to take credit for all the good things the government does, but I always find it curious that he is never prepared to take the blame when we make mistakes. He wants to share some of that with us as well. That being said, the matter is under review by the minister at present and he will be able to share it with the member when he has made his final determinations.

Mr. Mackenzie: Inasmuch as it was a signed agreement the Premier made, can he tell us now whether his commitment to justification of layoffs and plant shutdowns will include the Goodyear workers and whether the company, which is profitable, is going to have to pay the price, rather than the workers, for what has happened at Goodyear in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I gather notice was given for layoffs for six months from now. There are discussions going on at present. As the member will be aware from discussions in the House today, two of our colleagues are there, taking this matter very seriously at the moment. I cannot promise the member that the things we introduce will be retroactive. We are looking at this situation and trying to handle it on a specific basis.

There is some question about whether that factory is profitable and as to whether it is competitive. We had discussions about that in the House yesterday. I told the member that what concerns me about this particular layoff is the suggestion, at least in some quarters, that it is a function of corporate reshuffling, of the loading on of debt to fight a takeover bid. I find that extremely disturbing and it should be looked into by the members of this House. I will be happy if the standing committee on finance and economic affairs of this House wants to review this as a specific example of the whole question of corporate concentration.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Can he confirm or deny that he is under investigation by the Metropolitan Toronto Police?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: That is probably a question that should be addressed to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). Since it is addressed to me, I will answer it.

Last week the Attorney General stood in his place and, in answer to the same question, said he was instigating an investigation by the Metropolitan Toronto Police with regard to the incident in question.

Mr. Sterling: In spite of what the Solicitor General or any of his colleagues may deem to be the severity of this offence, the government appoints the majority of the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police on the commission's recommendation. The commission is responsible for policing in Metro Toronto.

Since the Solicitor General and his colleagues are essentially the bosses of the Metropolitan Toronto Police force, does he not think it inappropriate for him to remain as a member of the executive council?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: It is quite appropriate that I remain in the current capacity. We happen to control not only the majority of appointments to the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police but also the appointments to every board of commissioners of police in Ontario. Therefore, it is a rather protracted argument to suggest that because we are in that position, it jeopardizes any impartial investigation.

PROPANE EXPLOSION

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the explosion that took place a week ago in my constituency.

After discussions with the chief fire marshal and with people from the ministry's fuels safety branch, it is my understanding that the garage in question did not have liability insurance on the date of the accident. Can the minister explain how a garage engaged in this kind of business would not have liability insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I cannot answer that question. Within the capacity or the responsibility of the part of the ministry that deals with fuel handling, that is not a requirement. We do not have a requirement that in order to have an installation put in, a firm has to have liability insurance. Our people do not check into whether the firm has insurance.

Mr. Rae: I hope the minister will appreciate that there are people living within 80 yards of this explosion. If the propane tank itself had gone off, according to the minister's chief engineer, many of those people would have been killed.

Can the minister explain the complete breakdown in inspection? By admission of the minister's own officer, the garage was not inspected after March and was not liable to inspection by the fuels safety branch. It was not inspected by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications or by the Ministry of Labour.

What is the minister going to do to ensure that the residents and property owners who live nearby are going to get compensation for damage to their properties? What is he going to do to ensure that inspection starts to take place and that the people of Ontario are not subject to the possibility of an accident where it can be prevented by decent inspection?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: With all due respect to the leader of the third party, the situation and the facts are that the installation was made and inspected on March 17, 1986, and the inspection was found to be proper and adequate.

The preliminary report, which has not been completed, indicates that the accident was in an adjoining garage that would never have been the subject of inspection. A worker inadvertently, by accident or through negligence, cut a line. No amount of inspection would have prevented that line from being cut. Those are the facts of the case. There is nothing that we or the inspector could have prevented.

As far as the insurance issue is concerned, again, that is not part of the mandate of the fuels safety branch, but we are currently examining the situation. I sympathize with the problem. We are looking at it to see what resolution can be made, but those are the facts of the case.

15:00

DRUG DISPENSING

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Health. His proposed new regulations governing pharmacists change the current 34-day limit on a prescription drug supply to an eight-month limit, with the dispense-as-written rule added.

I would like to bring to the minister's attention an actual case in Burlington in which a senior citizen was prescribed Capoten at a cost to the Ontario drug benefit plan of $70.63 a month. After two weeks, because of a drug reaction, she was switched back to her previous drug, propanolol, which cost $9.99 a month. Under the new regulations, taxpayers could have lost close to $500 in that single instance because of wastage of the initial prescription.

Does the minister believe that saving $5 a month in dispensing fees to the pharmacists justifies that kind of loss to the taxpayers?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The people of Ontario are protected in various ways with respect to prescriptions being delivered by physicians. I happen to believe that if a physician prescribes a certain quantity of a drug, it is on the basis of an informed and reliable judgement with respect to what is needed by that patient. I am sure the member wants to provide for the people an entirely accurate and thorough analysis of all the sections of the regulations, which allow certain professional judgements and leeway in decisions with respect to the amounts to be dispensed by the pharmacists.

We have indicated to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario that we have agreed with its position on professional freedom to make judgements and decisions about the professional parameters within which dispensing medications are required. There are certain limits as a result of that professional freedom, which I am sure the member would understand to be very appropriate, perhaps in not providing the full amount prescribed.

The one item I am concerned about, however, when the member wants to analyse the professional decision not to dispense the entire quantity, is that there must be direct communication between the prescriber and the pharmacist, the professional who makes the decision about dispensing, perhaps because of an indication of a profile of drugs being consumed by the patient that might not be appropriate. That is very important.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I can also tell the honourable gentleman that we have had communications --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: -- with the College of Physicians and Surgeons--

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Jackson: The minister knows that his own government's Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens is concerned about the potential that this new legislation has for overuse or misuse of drugs, particularly when such large quantities can be made available. The minister is probably aware that this includes the growing number of hospital admissions throughout Ontario for noncompliance with medication. Whose health is the minister most concerned about -- the long-term health of our senior citizens in Ontario or the short-term health of the provincial Treasury?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is quite obvious, and the member should understand, that we are concerned about the health of seniors. We have talked considerably in our committee deliberations on these bills about the question of the appropriateness of prescribing medication.

A number of people came to talk to us about their opportunities to review in detail what drugs are being used, how they are being used by seniors and how they are being prescribed. From my standpoint, I was very taken with some of the indications made by members of the Ontario Pharmacists' Association and by members of consumer groups and of seniors' associations when they expressed a very large degree of concern about the utilization of drugs in the province.

I can tell the honourable gentleman and the public, however, that there must be, and I expect there will be, as a result of the passage of Bills 54 and 55, a lot more communication between prescribers and dispensers in consultation with the consumers, the very people who should know exactly what they are getting, why they are getting it and from whom they are getting it.

I think these bills will be helpful to instil in our system a great deal more communication than perhaps was there before. I look forward to being able to implement these bills and having them proclaimed and in force on December 1.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs. Grier: I am glad the Minister of the Environment has already had drawn to his attention the fact that up to one million litres of ethylene glycol per year can flow from Pearson International Airport right into the Mimico Creek.

Would the minister not agree that this is yet another loophole in his municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program and that any of the programs he has already announced or any of the practices currently in place in his ministry do nothing to stop this type of pollution?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will try to be as comprehensive as my colleague in answering this question. The honourable member is aware that the MISA program was designed specifically to deal with direct discharges into the environment that come from industrial and municipal sources -- industrial in that they would be, for instance, from a Dow Chemical plant and would go directly into a waterway, and municipal in that they would come from one of the municipal sites in Ontario, even one operated by the Ministry of the Environment.

There are other practices, of course, through the auspices of the spills bill, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and a number of initiatives that are taken by both the federal and provincial governments to prevent this type of situation from arising. It seems to me there is -- for instance in this case, as there is in so many of the cases -- a very straightforward answer to it; that is, to install the appropriate gutters and to put in the necessary collection tanks.

Mrs. Grier: I am glad the minister knows what needs to be done about the problem. I agree with him that his ministry needs to have guidelines for ethylene glycol. It has none at the moment. His ministry needs to have a requirement that Transport Canada have a permit in order to use this ethylene glycol. Also, the study that Transport Canada had done in 1975, which recommended retention tanks, needs to be implemented.

Can the minister tell us what he intends to do about those solutions and when he intends to put them in place?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If the member had asked that question specifically in the first place, I might have tried to be more specific than I was in my initial answer.

I share the member's surprise, for instance, that Environment Canada, which has looked into this matter, has not communicated successfully with Transport Canada in suggesting that this would be appropriate. What is particularly important arising from the member's question is this: The member and I both attended a conference in Hamilton on the weekend at McMaster University, where the issue of jobs and the environment arose. One of the suggestions that emerged from that was that money could be saved by undertaking environmentally safe practices.

That is why, if Air Canada is not of its own volition prepared to save that money and at the same time be environmentally safe, we as a ministry will ensure that those gutters and recovery tanks are installed at the earliest opportunity.

ARTS FUNDING

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. The minister is aware that the passage of an amendment to the Retail Sales Tax Act contained within Bill 26, which proposes to eliminate the 10 per cent exemption currently granted to not-for-profit theatres, will mean a loss of some $1.6 million to the six major Ontario performing arts centres alone, even though the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has defined this amendment as revenue-neutral.

The minister is also aware that this revenue is badly needed by these theatres to support volunteer community orchestras and Canadian artists and to cover the general operating costs of community theatres.

In view of these realities, has the minister discussed this matter with the Treasurer? What was the outcome of that discussion? Does the minister agree with this?

15:10

Hon. Ms. Munro: Our ministry has certainly had discussions with the Ministry of Revenue and has received many items of correspondence on both sides of the question. The Treasurer is certainly sympathetic but feels very strongly that the bill should go forward as indicated.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 51, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Rents Charged for Rental Units in Residential Complexes.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cordon moved first reading of Bill 157, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gordon: I think residents of Ontario are aware that companies have been taking surplus funds out of pension plans. It is my view that workers in Ontario need protection. That protection will come through my bill, which provides that surplus funds can no longer be scooped out of pension plans.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: House leaders' agreements seem to be somewhat ephemeral, but it is agreed that the House will stand down the first 17 sections of the bill so that the debate may begin on section 18. I suggest the major topic for debate and discussion will be the first five subsections. It is our intention that if there is not agreement on the amendment as it is presented in the bill, the House will decide by its vote the disposition of these matters at the end of that debate.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Nixon has stated that the first 17 sections of Bill 7 will be deferred until after section 18 is dealt with and the vote finished. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Mr. McClellan: Just so that we are absolutely clear about the voting procedure, my understanding is that we are stacking the vote until 5:45 of the afternoon when we conclude the debate on the matter that is now before us.

Mr. Chairman: On section 18.

Mr. McClellan: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, that is agreeable to me. It is not what I said, but it is agreeable to me -- that is, to have the vote at the end of the afternoon, at 5:45, when those subsections are completed as far as the debate is concerned.

Mr. Andrewes: I wonder whether the government House leader might restate what he said originally so that we can be clear about what the options are.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I indicated that House leaders' agreements were somewhat ephemeral.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No, but I thought it might be better if the vote were taken as soon as the debate was completed. The original agreement, which was based on a debate that was to have happened yesterday, was that we would complete the debate perhaps yesterday and then have a vote at 5:45, so that the members who were not immediately involved in the discussion would know when to return to indicate their view.

I am prepared to accept the proposal by the House leader of the New Democratic Party that the vote be taken, if there is one, at 5:45 on the day the debate on the subsections I referred to is completed.

Mr. Chairman: Is that clear? The vote will be taken at 5:45 on the day on which consideration of section 18 of this bill is completed.

Mr. Harris: May I suggest that we agree to that for today?

Mr. Chairman: Is there unanimous consent?

Mr. McClellan: We are talking about the first five subsections of section 18.

Mr. Chairman: The first five subsections of section 18 of Bill 7. Is there unanimous consent? As the opposition House leader stated, that is the agreement for today. Agreed?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Nixon has moved that sections 1 to 17, inclusive, be deferred, or stood down, until after the consideration of section 18, subsections (1) to (5), inclusive. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Sections 1 to 17, stood down.

On section 18:

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will speak to the first section.

Mr. Chairman: The first subsection?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments, questions or amendments to any of subsections 18(1) to (5), inclusive?

Mr. McKessock: Section 18.

Mr. Chairman: Which subsection?

Mr. McKessock: The five subsections.

Mr. Chairman: All right. Is it correct that there are many members who wish to speak to subsection 18(5)?

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Fine. Then we will just start in. There will be many, and we will go in speaking order.

Shall we start with subsection 18(1)? I take it there is no one else interested in speaking to, questioning or amending any other section besides the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on subsection 18(1) and many members on subsection 18(5).

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I do not know why this is so difficult. Why do we not just have the debate?

Mr. Chairman: Because the standing orders call for it.

15:20

Mr. McClellan: No, they do not. Why do we not just have the debate that has been arranged on a three-party basis on the five subsections that are before the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed, and subsection 1 comes before subsection 2.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, could we just agree to discuss subsections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 all at the same time?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the minister who has responsibility for the carriage of this act and, of course, of this section, it is appropriate for me to make some remarks to introduce the section to the House, particularly because the section that is advanced was not in the bill on second reading but was introduced by members of the standing committee on administration of justice sitting in committee.

As honourable members will see, subsections 1 through 5 contemplate amendments to sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Human Rights Code of Ontario. As they will perhaps know, each of those sections follows the model of section 2 of the Human Rights Code, which provides:

"Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status, handicap or the receipt of public assistance."

This bill proposes to introduce the words "sexual orientation" into that catalogue of groups. "Sexual orientation" for the purpose of this debate involves any orientation of a sexual nature that is not inconsistent with the law, that is not prohibited by the law.

It goes without saying that as a result of amendments to the Criminal Code at least a decade ago, not only is a homosexual or bisexual orientation not unlawful, but any act that results from it, unless specifically prohibited, is also not unlawful. None is prohibited, except the general list of offences which can be committed by either homosexuals or heterosexuals against children, women in certain cases or animals.

What we are dealing with here is adding to the Human Rights Code a provision that will make membership in a class, which the law of Canada regards as a class of lawful persons, a prohibited ground of discrimination.

I will briefly tell the members of the House how this matter comes to be decided today. In the first place, it is a matter of record and a testament to the important initiatives that the previous government undertook that Ontario has long been a leader in human rights legislation.

In 1944, the Racial Discrimination Act was passed in Ontario; in 1962, Ontario was a leader in Canada in creating the code whose sections we propose to amend today. The purpose of that history and of this code was to prohibit discrimination in the delivery of public services to individuals who were perceived to belong to a class. It required that an individual's entitlement or right to a service should be decided by reference to an individual's own merit or demerit and not by a subjective assessment that the applicant falls into a class that has been characterized in some negative fashion. That is the thrust of all human rights legislation and has been the thrust of this legislation from the beginning.

Honourable members will recognize that when this bill was passed in 1962, the catalogue of classes was not as long as it is now. It has been amended from time to time, and it has been amended when this assembly has perceived that there are fellow citizens who are being refused or threatened to be refused public services on the basis of the perception, accurate or not, that they belong to a class. Then the assembly has intervened to say no one should be deprived of a public service if he is law-abiding, if he belongs to a class, without an individual, personal evaluation of whether, as a citizen, he is entitled to or needs that service. That has been the history of human rights legislation from the very beginning.

One hundred years ago in this very province, to say nothing of elsewhere, it used to be believed that the Irish -- and I say this with some hesitation in the presence of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) -- as a class were drunk and irresponsible workers. It was true that there were some Irishmen who drank. There were some Irishmen who were irresponsible because they drank. It may even have been the case that more Irishmen than Englishmen drank. I consider it likely. However, what that apprehension led to in Ontario, and nowhere else, was a perception in the public mind that Irishmen drank and were drunk and were irresponsible.

Do members know what that led to for my great-grandfather and others of Irish extraction? That led to signs, "No Irish need apply" for jobs. Any Irishman, no matter how responsible in individual terms, no matter how respectable, no matter how law-abiding, no matter how capable of hard work in industry, need not apply. Why? Because he was judged to be a member of a class about which a generalization that may have been true or false was accepted.

It was not just the Irish. It was believed of the Jews. Everybody in his own lifetime can remember the sense from the Middle Ages, by virtue of the usury laws, that the Jews were better at making money, were tricksters, were sharp. Some of them were, but most of them were not. Most of them turned out to be just like the rest of us. Therefore, we had to add those classifications to the Human Rights Code to protect the human rights of the members of those groups.

What were we trying to protect? We were not trying to say you were better if you were a Jew. We were not trying to say you were better if you were Irish. What we were trying to say was that you were exactly the same if you were those things and that you were entitled to have your right to services for which your tax dollar paid, quite often, evaluated on the basis of your willingness to obey the law and on your own merits and demerits.

That is all human rights legislation is, but it is the least of what it is, in the sense that there can be no human rights legislation worthy of the name without that central requirement.

As this assembly in the past three decades has added categories to this catalogue of groups against whom discriminatory acts will be prohibited, members of the assembly have always had to tussle with what are perceived as moral questions about whether there is discrimination against this or that group that would warrant its being added as a class, not for special protection but so that it could have equal treatment.

In Ontario, the human rights commission, which this assembly established, reported unanimously more than a decade ago to the Legislature that there were persons of sexual orientation -- homosexual or lesbian -- who were not being equally treated in the provision of services in our community. I did not make that up. The report a decade ago said that.

15:30

One of the members of the human rights commission of that day, the Rev. Bruce McLeod, a former moderator of the United Church, says:

"Ten years ago, I was part of the code review process of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. We discovered that in Ontario people were being harassed by police and others, and denied access to accommodation and jobs, not because they had done anything wrong, not because they had committed any crime, but because they were suspected of being homosexual. That is still the case. There are people living in fear in Ontario because others know they are homosexual and threaten to tell. They are teachers, lawyers, police officers and clergymen. Some of them are paying blackmail."

If that is true, then no one here will not move to see that those people, the members of that class, obtain what they are entitled to, that is, equal evaluation and treatment to services that the law and quite often their tax dollars provide.

That was the report of the human rights commission. I want to refer to the report made by the social Ontario conference of the Catholic bishops, because that conference reported precisely the same thing. In 1979, in a paper called Witness to Justice, that conference of bishops -- they were not confronting any amendments; they were commenting on a factual situation -- said this, in summary:

"Homosexual men and women are being faced with discrimination in jobs, experience and housing. Indeed, many people of homosexual orientation who comply with the law -- men and women -- experience fear and loneliness in their daily lives." They go on to give examples of that.

What we know beyond any doubt, if there was any doubt, is that persons exhibiting that sexual orientation are deprived of access to public services, as the Irish, the Jews, the French Canadians and dozens of other groups were. The purpose of this legislation is not to exalt their status, to permit them to break laws or to alter any of the fabric of our society, but to give to them the least they are entitled to as human beings, the same individual access in which their capacity and their needs can be evaluated by those who provide public, not voluntary, services.

I observe that human rights legislation of the type we are describing has always had that character. It is not a question of giving privileges, extra rights or special status, and it never was. It was always a question of inviting those who provide services to examine whether, on an individual basis, the applicant should be entitled to that service.

In this country, one can reject a man for a job if he is incompetent but not if he is black. One can reject people for housing if they are noisy or do not pay their bills, but not because they are Jews. What we say today is that it is now time to take the next step.

We are not alone in confronting this major social issue. Quebec took that step almost a decade ago. Those who are fearful of the consequences of taking the step will want to look very carefully at our sister province, which has lived under a regime in which its code was amended as this one is proposed to be, and almost all the consequences that were feared a decade ago have not occurred.

The federal government has said as well that it proposes to amend, if necessary, the Canadian Human Rights Code --

Interruption.

Mr. Mancini: That person should be ejected from the House for saying that.

Mr. Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The minister is being harassed unjustly from a person in the gallery.

Mr. Chairman: I heard a comment. I did not see the person who spoke.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, in view of the attention this debate is attracting and will continue to attract, may I suggest that you advise the gallery on the rules surrounding interjections in this House.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. May I point out to the gallery that demonstrations of any kind are prohibited. No demonstrations, including clapping and otherwise, are permitted in the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The second point I want to make is that this bill was introduced by the previous government to ensure that the laws of Ontario would comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This amendment was not in the bill at introduction. It was introduced in committee, and when it was introduced in committee, it received support from members of all parties who were on the committee.

I suggest that this bill is required by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Attorney General of Canada has justified his initiative to amend the Canadian Human Rights Code because he says he is obliged to do so by impact of the charter. How could that be so? The way it could be so is this: The charter is a document of great breadth. It prohibits discrimination against any lawful group, and included in that are the groups with which we deal today. Our code is constructed differently. It is not so broad. What this amendment is proposed to do is to bring our code, as the federal code will shortly be brought and as the Quebec code has now been brought, into compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Some members of the House may feel there is doubt about the meaning of sexual orientation. I want to make one point about that. The dictionary meaning, the traditional meaning, has to do with homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation. Sexual orientation in this context or any other has nothing to do with bestiality, nothing to do with any offences that the law regards. For example, this law cannot and does not attempt to create an exception for acts that are prohibited under the Criminal Code. If an act is prohibited by the Criminal Code, no one need worry that this amendment will alter that in any way.

I suggest there are a number of things that this law, if passed, will not do. It will not disrupt the values of society. It does not speak to the values of society; it speaks to equal access to services. If members believe it will disrupt the values of our society, I ask them objectively to look at the experience in Quebec and at the experience in Europe where many countries and states have enacted an amendment such as this. I ask them to look at the experiences in some of the cities of the United States where amendments to municipal codes of this type have been obtained. In every one of these cases, there is no evidence that the fundamental values of society have been altered in any way by assuring to individual law-abiding citizens that their access to housing, to employment, to what have you, will be judged on their individual merit and entitlement.

I do not believe any member of this House would want a person's access to housing, to employment, to the benefits that the tax dollar buys to be refused on the basis of a perception that the person belongs to one group or another about which there are public conceptions that may or may not be accurate.

15:40

This law will not permit or require paedophiles to be hired by day care centres; it will not permit or require child molesters to be hired in schools. The law will remain that if a person is a child molester or a paedophile, regardless of whether he is homosexual or heterosexual, no school or day care centre is required to hire him. That law will always be in place, and this law will not affect that question one iota.

I respect profoundly the good opinion of my colleagues and the good faith with which they will approach this important debate. I know they have received, as I have, literally thousands of letters from one side or another of this issue inviting them to take positions. Though I have been here only a year and a half, l understand the pressure that such campaigns appropriately create on an individual member.

However, the reality is that we are making an important judgement about our society. The supreme obligation on us is not to support our party, right or wrong, but is, in the end, on the important questions, to make a judgement of which we can be proud when we look back over our lives and ask how we have honoured the human rights of our fellow citizens.

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

It is understandable that one would oppose a bill out of fear of the consequences. However, before doing so, every honourable member would want to examine the bill, the consequences and our experience to see whether those fears are objectively justifiable. In my respectful view, there is no evidence that supports the conclusion that the kind of fears that have been presented to us about the future of our society are justified by this amendment.

This amendment deprives no person of an existing right. There is no person anywhere in Ontario who loses a lawful right if this amendment is passed. It 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.

What it does is say that law-abiding members of this group will have access to services judged entirely on their merits and not because of some stranger's perception that they belong to the group or not.

I say to honourable members, before they vote against this amendment, if they are inclined to do so out of fear, which is the lowest human motive for acting -- there is nothing wrong with acting on fear; that is what keeps one's hand off a hot stove -- they will want to be satisfied that there is an objective, rational and logical basis for the fear that motivates them. Fear is the one motivation we share with animals. There is nothing wrong with it, and we will use it, but only in those cases where there is objective evidence that the fears that confound us are warranted.

The second feeling I sense honourable members have is that the bill should be opposed for moral reasons. I am conscious that many honourable members, like myself, belong to an organized religion or, if they do not, have developed an ethical code that is important for them in the organization of their own life, as a religious code is to me and to others. But I do not believe this bill, properly understood, has anything to do with those moral values.

I regard it as a matter of some importance to make this point because, increasingly in the last two decades, we live in a pluralistic society in which there are among us -- who have been here as long as the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) and Scott -- all kinds of newcomers from different countries who subscribe to different religions, who have different moral views and who sometimes have none. But we say that as long as they obey the law, their morality, the ethical code they select to govern the relations among them and with their god or their maker, is a personal matter for them.

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.

I say that particularly as a Roman Catholic. I thought this issue was decided when John Fitzgerald Kennedy went to speak to the Houston ministers in Texas in that first campaign. What the Houston ministers were saying to him was, "John Kennedy, you cannot be President of this country," and he said, "Why not?" They said, "You cannot be President of this country because you have a particular moral value as a Roman Catholic that makes you unsuitable." "Why would it make me unsuitable?" he asked. "It would make you unsuitable because you would act on your moral value and try to make it the law of the land. That would not suit Protestants, Sikhs, Hindus and Moslems."

For Catholics in public life, that was a critical moment because we were being told by the Protestant majority in the United States that we could not make a separation between our moral judgement and our determination to act in the interests of all our fellow citizens; that when push came to shove, we would force Catholic values on everybody, whether Catholic or not.

John Kennedy put the lie to that not only in his words in Houston but also in the course of his presidency. Ever since Houston, I do not believe that in a pluralistic society, no matter how important our own moral values are, no matter how firmly we hold to them and no matter how they regulate every aspect of our lives, we can permit this Legislature to enact the moral values of anybody, no matter how firmly they are held.

The most recent illustration of that, and I will read it to members before I sit down, is given by Governor Cuomo of the state of New York, who, with the assistance of the Legislature of the state of New York, passed an ordinance almost precisely the same as the one we are looking at today.

He was invited to speak as a Catholic at Sunday service at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City on November 27, 1983. He was asked to address this question in relation to his responsibilities as a politician and in relation to his responsibilities under the Constitution, which for those purposes parallels our charter.

15:50

He commented on the paradox that one could have strict moral values that govern one's own life and still not force those values on others who do not share them. That is a paradox. If you believe strongly that something is against the law of God, it is a paradox if you will not force everybody to do exactly what you think. He commented on that paradox and here is what he said:

"The paradox was most recently raised in a letter I received on the executive order I issued banning discrimination against homosexuals in state government. The writer attacked what I had written. He took a stand on the executive order that most of us here today would disagree with. Yet the question he raises of religious belief and governmental action is a valid one. In one form or another, all of us who mix our faith and our politics, certainly those of us concerned about the stewardship of power, must be ready to answer it.

"In part, the letter says the following: `Governor Cuomo, you call yourself a Christian. Yet how can you claim to be a Christian when you go out of your way to proclaim the right of people to be what is an abomination in the sight of God?'"

The Governor answers that: "The answer, I think, drives to the very heart of the question of where private morality ends and public policy begins, how I involve myself in the political life of a world broad enough to include people who do not believe all the things I believe about God and conduct. Am I obliged to seek to legislate my particular morality in all of its exquisite detail? And if I fail, am I then required to surrender stewardship rather than risk hypocrisy?"

The Governor goes on: "The answer, I think, is reflected in the one foundation on which all of us as citizens must try to balance our political and religious commitments: the Constitution" -- or the charter.

"Those who founded this nation knew that you could form a government that embodied the particular beliefs and moral rules of one religion. They knew that choice was available to them. Indeed, at that time, there was hardly a government in the world that operated otherwise. But to secure religious peace, the Constitution" -- and our charter -- "demands tolerance. It says no group, not even a majority, has the right to force its religious or moral views on any part of the community.

"It said that where matters of private morality are involved" -- I am not talking about breaking the law -- "belief or actions that do not impinge on other people or deprive them of their rights, the state has no right to intervene."

He goes on: "This neutrality did not forbid Christians or Jews or Moslems to be involved in politics. Just the opposite. By destroying the basis for religious tests, by destroying the basis for making people's beliefs and private lives a matter of government concern, it secured that involvement, ensured it and encouraged it.

"Our Constitution" -- and our charter -- "provides that there are areas the state has no business intruding in, freedoms that are basic and inalienable. In creating this common political ground, it created a place where all citizens could stand, a place where we could tolerate each other's differences and respect each other's freedom."

That is the meaning of this amendment.

Mr. Cousens: I rise to follow a very eloquent presentation by my friend the Attorney General. I have listened with care, trying to understand the position that is being taken by the government and by the third party in presenting this amendment.

I share some of the concerns that are being presented: to see that our society respects all members of the society, whoever they might be and wherever they might live, in spite of their age or their youth, their wealth or their poverty, their contribution as some might see it, their ability or their disability, their sexual orientation. All people within our society are to be respected, understood and appreciated.

As a legislator, I see that as an implicit responsibility we all have, to make sure we continue to build a framework and a lifestyle in a society that has as its basis this fundamental respect for all people. I am very conscious of the obligation we have to do what is right for all people. I have some concerns with what could happen with the proposal before us, in making special reference to sexual orientation. I would like to reflect on my concerns and table them for public inspection and review.

In 1982, when Canada completed the major reorganization of its legal framework with the enactment of the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights, there was no reference to sexual orientation. There was a conscious decision by the leaders of our country at that time not to include sexual orientation because, in their minds, section 15 of the charter said it all:

"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

When those words were framed and agreed upon to become part of our new Constitution, there was no constitutional imperative to include sexual orientation in the charter. Bill 7, as prepared by this ministry, is described in its title, An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I agree with the original intent of Bill 7, but the new amendment places within the bill a condition that is not originally part of the Canadian Charter of Rights or the Canadian Constitution. Sexual orientation is not contained in the federal charter.

Since the original intent of Bill 7 was to bring Ontario statutes into conformity with the federal statute, I question why, in our wisdom, we now wish to give special status to one group. I believe strongly that section 15 says it well for all people and, therefore, I make two points. First, the amendment is fundamentally out of order if the intent of Bill 7 is to be in keeping with the Canadian charter and to have those amendments in that way. Second, this amendment is not needed because all people are covered by section 15.

If we need to have laws to protect people in our province from discrimination, let us enact them. Let us come forward, and in those sections of the law where we can help guarantee the rights of all people, let us do so. I do not have the legal background that the Attorney General brings, but speaking as one who has great respect for the traditional family unit, I believe, again as a legislator, everything I do has to be looked upon as going back to the very basis of what makes up our society.

I believe the traditional family unit, the heterosexual relationship of mother, father and family people around them, is probably the most important unit of our society. I believe that, and as part of the unit, I want to encourage the development of the family. I do not want to undermine it. I do not want to see the family in any way eroded or changed but to allow it to be strong. There seem to be so many pressures within our society that would undermine what the family unit is all about. As a legislator, I want to build up family values.

16:00

I believe as well that most Ontarians are empathetic to practising homosexuals. However, I believe this amendment erodes the status of the normal family by equating this legal status with homosexual union. I am concerned about the long-term social impact of promoting homosexual unions as marriage. I repeat that nothing should be allowed to undermine, in the minds of my children or the children of others or in the eyes and minds of all our society, that the family unit is supreme in our Ontario. In coming along with a special enactment, it in some way equates another group with the family unit as I have known it, and this could have long-term ramifications.

As people come and study the law and its impact, what will be said when they ask, "What is more important?" I come back to a belief that comes from my background, that says the family is of the most utmost importance and anything I do as a legislator should build up the family; it should nourish and strengthen it. In that respect, I speak strongly for the family unit, with the concern that this amendment could in some way erode its importance.

The final point I want to make is that this is all happening very quickly; Ontario is changing so rapidly before our eyes. I am prepared to accept change, but when changes start to affect the very fabric of what our society is all about, there should be a full and complete debate by all members of our society so they can participate in the thinking processes that will allow them to understand the long-term impact of this amendment on what they want this province to be. I fear there has not been that opportunity.

Mind you, we have been getting mail in droves on both sides of the issue. The phone has rung and people have talked with us. However, to what extent has the issue been discussed throughout our province so that everybody is aware of what it is we are saying?

If we, as a society, can abolish discrimination against all people, I want to do it. If at the same time we can build those institutions that make for a strong society, then I want to do it. If we can do it in a way in which all the people of our province understand what it is we want and are trying to do, I want to do it, because I believe what we are doing here today has great importance for the future of our province.

In speaking against this amendment, I do so in the hope that we can find ways to end all discrimination. When the Attorney General speaks with eloquence about the importance for civil rights, human rights and civil libertarians, I endorse much of what he says, but I worry about how we are doing it. I believe he was right when he first came forward with his Bill 7; it did not have within it the amendment as it is now. At that point, he understood how the federal Constitution and the Ontario Human Rights Code could coincide and work together.

With this lately-brought-forward amendment, I am seriously concerned about what he is doing or what the government might do. Assuming there will be a vote and we will all consider what we want to do according to our own consciences -- we do, and I respect that -- may we do so with the knowledge that what we are doing could have serious negative ramifications. I do not even know what they are. It is only that if I can put the family as number one, I will continue to do so.

If there was a conscious decision by the federal legislators not to include this, I suggest we not do it now; let us instead work wholeheartedly to end discrimination and to continue to build a society that is fully strong.

Ms. Gigantes: I have long anticipated this moment, and it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the five amendments from section 18 of Bill 7 that we are considering, amendments to the Human Rights Code to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in housing, in employment, in services, in contracts and in membership of vocational groups such as trade unions and professional associations.

I believe these amendments to the Ontario code to be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights. I further believe that section 15 of the federal charter, the equality rights section, obligates us to change our Human Rights Code and to say it shall no longer be legal to discriminate against homosexual people in Ontario. I also believe residents of this province, in their large and tolerant majority, are satisfied to see us undertake this reform on their behalf.

It is more than a year since I first tabled the private member's bill, Bill 37, which is summed up in the section of Bill 7 we are now considering. Bill 7, as members will recollect and as has been pointed out earlier, originally contained no reference to the Human Rights Code. It was a bill that proposed to bring Ontario legislation in line with the equality rights section of the Charter of Rights, but strangely, it did not provide for any review and improvement of our Human Rights Code.

In the late summer of 1985, I read that the Attorney General intended to expand Bill 7 to include the Human Rights Code and to prohibit sex discrimination by sports associations. I wrote to ask him to consider amendment of the code to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. His response was not encouraging; so I decided to put forward the amendments now included in section 18 as subsections 1 through 5.

The standing committee on administration of justice began public hearings on Bill 7 in early February 1986, and within a few days I tabled and had circulated the amendments before us and other amendments related to the rights of psychiatric patients and handicapped people. The justice committee heard public representations in February, March and April 1986.

Members will forgive my taking time to recount this chronology. Since February, a well-organized campaign against these provisions of section 18 of Bill 7 has been carried on in Ontario. One of the false contentions in that campaign has been that the amendments to section 18 somehow have been sneaked into Bill 7, that those opposing the section have not had the opportunity to register their opposition through a public hearing process and that a sort of conspiracy has transpired to bring members of all three parties to approve section 18 in the report from the justice committee. This is a noxious theory. It does not match the facts, as members know, and I fondly hope it is now finally laid to rest.

16:10

Being the proponent of these amendments to section 18 has been an enriching experience in personal terms. It has provided learning, pain and joy that I would not have wished to miss. It has brought new friendships and a deeper understanding of the fears that haunt us as human beings. I would like to take a few minutes to speak about that experience. It is an experience directed in large measure by the organized opposition to section 18, which has taken different forms at different times during the past several months.

The first line of assault was that the prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation would leave society powerless against those who perpetrated acts of paedophilia or bestiality. This kind of suggestion tends to startle and confuse the nonlegal mind, and it certainly succeeds through quasi-legal style in associating people of homosexual orientation with some of the most repulsive acts of sexual assault.

The question we were posed was, how do you define sexual orientation? The demand we were confronted with was to find a definition of sexual orientation that would mean the Ontario Human Rights Commission would not force us to employ, house or associate with people who victimize children and animals.

The chairman of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Canon Borden Purcell, would laugh at this suggestion, of course. He is a good-humoured man. He would carefully explain that the Human Rights Code does not have precedence over legislation, that the Criminal Code of Canada makes acts of paedophilia and bestiality illegal and punishable and that the Human Rights Code cannot undo the Criminal Code.

But I very much doubt he would laugh at the implication that homosexual people are more likely to commit such crimes than heterosexual people. That is not a laughing matter. It is a slanderous distortion of the truth. The truth, as we are painfully forced to recognize, is that the vast majority of such crimes are committed by men who are heterosexual. Their victims are usually young girls, often members of their own family. Sometimes the victims are young boys.

A few months ago, a member of this Legislature from another party approached me and asked whether he could speak to me "as a mother." "Sure," I said, "I am always glad to speak to anyone as a mother." "Well," he said, "I want to ask you how you feel about this homosexual thing." I said. "Do you mean my amendments to Bill 7?" "Your amendments?" he said. "Of course," I said. "Why would you do something like that?" he asked. I explained quite simply, "To stop unfairness." "But are you not concerned about the effects on children?" I explained my understanding of the facts of child assault. "Oh, I think you are wrong," he said. "Even in my little town it is those people who have caused the problems for children." "Well," I said, "I think there is a lot you do not know about your little town."

The whole poisonous attempt to smear homosexual people by association with despicable sexual crimes has forced me to reflect on the very nature of our judgements about sexual assault. When we get to the bottom of it all, I am afraid we are confronted with a social system that judges assault on little boys to be much more serious than the more frequent assaults on little girls. That is why the assaulter of little boys, who is assumed to be homosexual, is the ultimate social pariah. That is why anyone who is assumed to be homosexual is considered to be fair game for the accusation of paedophilia.

The question of the safety and welfare of children has been a lurking theme of the organized opposition to the initiatives before us. It was projected subtly in another of the lines of attack employed by the organized opposition. This time the proposition being advanced was that to protect homosexuals against discrimination in employment, housing, services, contracts and membership in vocational associations, we would be nullifying the opposite-sex provisions of the Ontario Marriage Act and changing the sections of the Child and Family Services Act so that homosexuals could automatically adopt children.

For those who are unfamiliar with the law, the court and politics and who have very traditional views of human relations, this kind of attack inspires real anxiety. One can explain that the human rights commission cannot write laws; only our parliaments write laws, including our laws on the Ontario health insurance plan and social welfare legislation. One can underline the basic principle of our laws concerning child welfare -- namely, the welfare of the child -- but one wonders how reassuring this message seems to people of good faith who have been told that some wicked and uncaring politicians are trying to "enshrine rights for homosexuals."

There is a view of who homosexuals are and how they behave in their lives that has been expounded in written and verbal forms and that is so ugly that it sticks like undigestible matter on the roof of the mind. Most members of this Legislature and a very large number of the electorate have read or heard these views from groups such as Realwomen of Canada, Ken Campbell and friends, etc. A school board trustee came before the standing committee on administration of justice and proposed to us that homosexuality is an addiction and had to be treated as an addiction. Realwomen has distributed a leaflet that claims homosexual people substitute recruitment for their frustrated procreative urges; they seduce and recruit heterosexual young people because they cannot have their own children. Lots of homosexuals have children, and this type of noxious nonsense is poison in our minds.

Other groups from as far away as the United States and British Columbia have circulated in Ontario brochures and letters that are semipornographic in their sexually explicit ugliness. All these materials are designed to create and encourage fear and loathing of homosexual people; they encourage hatred, and they have the effect of promoting discrimination. We know how far the effect of allowing the promotion of that discrimination can go. We have witnessed murder in this province by young people who thought it was okay if the victim was a homosexual.

I do not wish to suggest that most of the organized opposition to the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation has been of this nature -- most has not -- but the point is that this type of ugliness has been used to inform the fears and feelings of people who do not have easy access to other sources of information.

The strange thing about the fearmongering that this type of campaign represents is that it treats homosexuality as if that state were a contagious disease. Coming as it does from individuals and groups which have demonstrated enormous, long-lasting, everlasting concern about the power of heterosexuality to wreak havoc with human lives, this claim that homosexuality is a contagion which can undermine social structures seems inconsistent, to put it mildly. If the sexual attraction between men and women is so powerful that only the strictest social structures can contain it, how can the existence of homosexual people pose a threat to heterosexual sexuality? It passeth understanding and it passeth credibility.

Given the organized opposition to these amendments, how do we provide a quiet and firm explanation of why we want to change our Human Rights Code? First, we speak to the current legal situation. In Ontario today, it is legal to deny rental accommodation, a seat in a restaurant, a job, a mortgage or a membership in a union to someone only because that person is named as a homosexual. That means the man in Hamilton East who was recently fired after many months in his job at Robinson's as a sales clerk, and the woman in Ottawa Centre who was forced out of her co-op unit, both of them in the past year, cannot make a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission about the unfairness they have suffered. We must speak of these acts of discrimination, and we must point to the real suffering they inflict on real people in Ontario.

16:20

We must also explain carefully and calmly that to provide protection from employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, colour, creed, age or sexual orientation is not to provide that a Jew must be hired by the Young Men's Christian Association, that a white must be hired by the black Metropolitan Church or that a homosexual must be hired by the Big Brothers of Canada. Protection against employment discrimination is provided in section 4 of the Human Rights Code which these amendments would, in part, amend. Section 4 of the code is limited by section 23 of the code, which reads as follows:

"The right under section 4 to equal treatment with respect to employment is not infringed where,

"(a) a religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social institution or organization that is primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified by their race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, creed, sex, age, marital status or handicap employs only, or gives preference in employment to, persons similarly identified if the qualification is a reasonable and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment."

Clause 23(a) clearly provides that groups or organizations that have as their purpose the provision of services to special categories of people have the right to select employees in accordance with a purpose of the groups or organizations. Further, it is important to note that the Human Rights Code in none of its clauses provides protection against discrimination in the selection of volunteers. The code provides no rights for anyone of any race, creed, sex or handicap to be accepted as a volunteer by any organization. Big Brothers can and does select the volunteers it wishes and will continue to be able to exercise full discretion in volunteer selection when section 18 is approved.

In the rental accommodation provisions of the code, a variety of exemptions is contained in section 20, including that a landlord who lives in the building or whose family lives in the building and shares a bathroom or a kitchen with a tenant may choose not to rent to any particular person, even if the reason for rejecting a person is on grounds of sex, race, creed, handicap or other enumerated ground. Section 21 of the Human Rights Code, which allows exemptions of this kind, will remain in effect when we approve the clauses of section 18 we are now considering.

If you walk into a restaurant tomorrow and somebody decides you are a homosexual, you can be refused service and you cannot complain to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. If I have been a good mechanic in a good garage for four years and the owner decides I am a homosexual, I can be fired and I cannot complain to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It is like being a suspected Jew in Nazi Germany; it is enough for someone to say you are a homosexual and you are dead in terms of rights to employment, housing, membership or a pizza.

Let me tell a real story to illustrate the arbitrary nature of homosexual life in Ontario. It is arbitrary because that is the way we have left it. Four months ago, a young man sporting an earring arrived in the NDP research office at Queen's Park. He had just been told he would not be hired for the job he might have had. Why? Because he was obviously gay. He was outraged. Not only was he not gay; he had no patience for those people. He wanted the NDP to defend him against the unfair treatment he had experienced. We explained we could not help; no complaint is possible in current law. I am sure he would not wish us to change the current law. He has no time for those people. It was his problem; it was not a problem of homosexuals.

None of us can or should defend ourselves against such a charge. After all, there is no way to prove that one is heterosexual, that deep in one's soul one is attracted to people of the opposite sex. One can never prove that. There is no reason we should have to do that for a job, an apartment, a pizza, a mortgage or a union membership. When we can do a job well, when we are good tenants and good neighbours, when we can pay for a pizza, pay the mortgage or work well with our associates, what right does anyone have to deny us those simple life needs because they think they can challenge our sexual orientation?

As a woman with very strong and traditional responses to the challenges of family life, child welfare and my own natural sexual urges, I find male responses to the "threat of homosexuality" to be terribly offensive. There are women, "Yassuh, Boss$" women, who have organized to support the notion of the Coalition for Family Values. I feel deeply offended by the understanding that some men will organize in religious and business groups to say that men who are not like them are traitors to a system where sex is a rightful means of oppression. Some of those men are hypocrites. Some are not telling the truth. Some know they are not heterosexual. Some of those women are strangers to what is best in the female sex, directness and honesty.

There are 125 elected representatives in the Ontario Legislature; 10 are women. If the sexual numbers and the social power were reversed, I believe the clauses of section 18 relating to sexual orientation might not even be necessary. Women do not feel threatened by homosexual people, male or female. It is the maleness of economic and social domination of our society that is threatened by this reform; not the womanness or the childness, but the maleness that so profits by its domination through being male.

Children do not vote and women came to vote but recently. It is my humble opinion that the hatred and victimization of homosexual people is part of a male-dominated system, dealing with men who do not join as if they were traitors. There is no task I have ever undertaken that has made me feel more radical than this one.

I look at Quebec, where sexual orientation has been excluded as grounds for discrimination for almost a decade. Family life is intact in Quebec. Small business still flourishes. The National Citizens' Coalition still has members. The Catholic church has numerous adherents, even now.

Speaking personally and professionally, I have never felt that the "seductive and recruiting urges" of homosexuals undermined family life in Ontario or anywhere else. When our churches and others become more truthful about heterosexual life and what it should imply, then I believe more of us who recognize religion as a power superior to politics or other earthly matters may come back to a reflective and reformed church. Many churches have done that.

In the meantime, in politics we must look to our best and most humane urges. We want tolerance. We want peace. We want civility. We want open avenues of respect and love among people. Politicians never really lead in a democratic society. As Emiliano Zapata said, "A strong people does not need a strong leader."

The best we can do as democratic politicians is to give voice and stature to the best in the people who give us the honour of representing them. The people we represent wish us to show them at their best, in their great and active goodwill to others. We will express their best nature, their urge to knowledge, understanding, acceptance and love, by supporting this kind of change to our Human Rights Code.

16:30

Mr. McKessock: I want to take a few moments to speak against section 18 of Bill 7, where the words "sexual orientation" have been inserted. Section 18 would amend the Human Rights Code to include "sexual orientation" as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. It would make it illegal for an employer or landlord to turn down a person because he or she is a professed homosexual or lesbian.

I have four reasons for opposing section 18 of Bill 7: (1) because of the views and input I have received from my constituents, (2) because of the concerns of the Big Brothers of Canada, (3) because of the political ramifications of passing this section and (4) because of my personal views on the issue.

I would like to deal with them in the order I have given them, dealing with my constituents' views first. I have received a very large volume of mail and phone calls on this issue. I have received only one call in favour of the amendment, and all the mail is in opposition. This past week, I received a few letters from outside my riding, from Kingston and Toronto, supporting the bill. These past two mornings, our phone lines have been ringing continuously with people calling from the Metro Toronto area stating their opposition to the amendment.

My constituents' concerns can be divided into two categories, those opposed because of the teachings of the Bible and those opposed because of the fear of the consequences of passing section 18 of the bill. Landlords fear the openness this bill will give the homosexual community. Employers, especially those who hire people who deal with children, are afraid of the influence that will be transmitted from teacher to pupil. Parents, who have a continuous struggle to raise their children with proper morals, see a deterioration of standards and ethics.

The public has not had a chance to be heard on this amendment, and I am going to give some of them that chance today by passing on some of the concerns sent to me by way of letters. I will not indicate who the letters are from but will read some of the comments sent to me.

One letter reads:

"I am much concerned about an after-second-reading amendment to Bill 7 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in respect to services, accommodation, contracts, employment and vocational association. This amendment could give special status to homosexuals and lesbians. It could make it impossible for associations and individuals to exclude these persons from positions in Boy Scouts or school boards, to set standards for its teachers and for landlords to exclude such persons from family apartment buildings. With the great moral decay in our society, it is paramount that we surround our children with good moral examples. At one time, teachers were models for their pupils, but frequently this is no longer the case.

"It is my understanding that `sex' under the Canadian Charter of Rights means gender, not orientation. The orientation issue was discussed and defeated in 1981. This amendment must be withdrawn. Please write me of your position on this issue. Be clear and precise in regard to where you stand."

A letter from another constituent reads:

"It causes me and my family great dismay to know that the government of Ontario is considering amending the Human Rights Code to give special rights and privileges to homosexuals. They enjoy the same freedom that the rest of society has, such as speech, religion, association, also the same access to social services, government, business and politics. They already have equal rights under the legal system and the Constitution. No other minority group's behaviour or preference is protected by human rights laws. I resent the state forcing me to hire, rent to, associate with, etc., other people whose lifestyle is so different from mine.

"Gay rights groups have asked that they be allowed to teach their lifestyle as acceptable behaviour for children. Think about your grandchildren or relatives being exposed to this. Please do not give in to the pressure from gay activists to amend the code, but listen to the traditional society, uphold Christian values and laws our country has been built on."

Another letter reads:

"This letter is to let you know I am opposed to section 18 of the bill, which is amended by inserting `sexual orientation.' The term is not clearly defined. It could include relations with children. A homosexual's lifestyle is limited as to employment. A typhoid carrier may not work in a restaurant, for example. The health factor is important. Homosexuals use the body for an unintended purpose and can lead to disease, even AIDS.

"If this bill is passed, crimes against children will increase. Homosexuals could not be refused positions as teachers, school janitors, Scouts and Guides leaders, Big Brothers and Sisters -- any position of influence where our children are concerned. It is not necessary to have a separate section. Everyone is covered under the present bill as far as discrimination is concerned. What about the rights of the straight people? I would like to see this put to an open vote. We hear so much about rights and so little about responsibilities. May you be wise and firm."

I note that every one of these letters to me seems to have some little difference in the view being presented.

Another one reads:

"What I am concerned with is an amendment which was made to the bill after second reading, an amendment made in committee. The change the committee made that I am opposed to is the addition of the word `orientation.' I agree that discrimination between sexes is wrong, but I believe this refers to gender, not sexual orientation. `Sex' in the charter refers to gender, not orientation. The use of the teen `sexual orientation' was discussed in 1981 during the adoption of the charter, and the decision against its use was made.

"I believe it to be a terrible mistake for the Ontario government to give what I feel would be a stamp of approval written in law, making it impossible to discriminate against abnormal sexual behaviour. I hope that this is not the intention of our government and that measures will be taken to correct the language of this bill before it is passed. I am concerned for the welfare of my family and afraid of the implications which may result if this bill is passed as it now reads. I certainly hope that you will do all you can to have this situation corrected. I would appreciate your reply stating your stand on this bill."

Another constituent writes:

"I wish to express my opposition to Bill 7, section 18. I am sure you will represent me in a positive manner regarding the same."

Another constituent writes:

"We are very much opposed to the amendment made May 6, 1986, that was introduced and carried to insert `sexual orientation' in the Human Rights Code. I understand it is coming up for third reading this month. Would you please do your best to see that it is defeated? If passed, it will extend a legal support to homosexual behaviour, which is disgusting, to say the least."

Another constituent writes:

"We are deeply concerned about this amendment that was introduced in parliament to insert `sexual orientation' in the Human Rights Code. We feel this would unreasonably restrict the rights and freedoms of many people and would be inappropriate and interference with the moral choices and community standards of Canadians. We are thankful we have this privilege of writing and appealing to you and for this land we live in. May God bless you abundantly."

Another constituent writes:

"The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I definitely oppose the up-and-coming legislation that would allow homosexuals the right to teach children. As far as I am concerned, our rights are being infringed upon more than the homosexuals' because now our children's safety and morals are being put in jeopardy by them. Why should we, a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, give rights to a group of people that will remove the blessing of God from us?"

Another constituent writes:

"We, the undersigned, as Christians, believe a serious dissolution and erosion of Judaeo-Christian principles is afoot in society, and this must be stopped. This amendment, we believe, will open a floodgate of pernicious inroads into an already shaky and unstable structure of values in our society. We thank you for all efforts that you will extend to defeat this amendment."

Another constituent writes:

"Those people who are lesbians and homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals, so that if passed, the amendment will give them a special status, and in effect, take away the rights of those who do not wish to associate with them or have their values thrust upon them or taught to their children. If passed, it could cause untold problems for those who are trying to teach correct principles and morals. Please inform me of your thoughts and intentions with regard to the above."

16:40

Another constituent writes:

"We understand that an amendment now included in Bill 7 is sexual orientation. Sir, the homosexuals have the same legal rights and fundamental freedoms as do the heterosexuals. We do not feel this extra legislation is necessary.

"We too are Canadian citizens. We hold to Godly morals. These morals have made our country strong in freedom and health and welfare. We feel strongly that we, as parents and citizens, should not be required to hire or have teach our children people who have chosen a lifestyle contrary to our moral standards. The homosexuals have the right to follow what they will or want, but it is wrong to force that on us.

"We request that this amendment be separated from Bill 7. If necessary, it could be debated in public as a separate piece of legislation. Thank you for reading this letter. We strongly urge you to vote against having this sexual orientation in the Ontario Human Rights Code."

I have a petition that was signed by a great number of people from St. Peter's Parish, Durham, and St. Paul's Mission in Dornoch. It reads:

"The Catholic bishops of Ontario, gathered in plenary session in Toronto, September 29 to October 1, are opposed to the present form of omnibus Bill 7 now before the provincial Legislature. Much in this bill is good and quite acceptable. However, section 18, Nos. 1-5 to amend the Human Rights Code of Ontario, prohibiting discrimination on the ground of a person's sexual orientation, is unacceptable.

"The bishops support basic human rights for all members of society, including those with homosexual orientation. However, the church, and the Judaeo-Christian tradition, carefully distinguishes between homosexual orientation and homosexual behaviour. For the church, a homosexual behaviour or lifestyle is contrary to Christian morality, and any law that leaves the door open for such a lifestyle will cause great harm to society.

"Bill 7 does not make this crucial distinction. Indeed, the very ambiguity of the phrase `sexual orientation' lends itself to a total, unacceptable application. We believe that Bill 7 in its present form will have the social impact of promoting the recognition of homosexual unions as marriages and also seriously restrict the freedom of churches, governments, societies, business and schools to set criteria of conduct for their employees.

"The demand for social support for homosexual couples has already surfaced in Toronto, as was stated in the Globe and Mail on September 30 under the heading `Family Benefits Should Be Offered to Homosexual Employees, City Was Told.' Bill 7, if passed as it is, will erode the status of normal families by equating their legal status with that of homosexual unions, and so we deplore the attempt to pass Bill 7 without that widespread consultation and discussion which will permit the citizens of Ontario to express their will concerning it."

A letter that appeared in the October 28 issue of Town and Country under the heading "Sexual Orientation" reads:

"It is hard to believe that sexual orientation is to be included in the Human Rights Code. But then I'd believe almost anything today. Should this measure go through, our young folk will have no protection.

"The green light will be given to those who interfere with young children, and open sodomy is legitimized. Church groups will not be allowed to be selective when choosing youth leaders, otherwise they face charges of discrimination.

"I agree with what Rev. Hudson T. Hilsden feels. His coalition for Family Values must be supported by all rural families, whether Protestant or Catholic. Legitimizing homosexuality and lesbianism undermines our social fabric."

Another constituent writes:

"As a member in your riding, I am writing to take exception to section 18 of Bill 7. Although I support basic human rights for all members of society, including those with homosexual orientation, I am concerned about a bill which may promote the recognition of homosexual unions as marriages and at the same time will restrict the freedom of churches and other social agencies to set criteria of conduct for their employees. May I respectfully urge that the government allow time for public input in this matter."

Another constituent writes:

"Concerning Bill 7, section 18, I personally do not believe in homosexual practising people in our churches, especially in our schools. This is against all moral behaviour as laid out in the Bible. As I am a firm believer in the moral teachings of Christ, I want to stand firm against it."

Another constituent writes:

"This is to inform you that you speak for us in parliament. We are not in favour of homosexuals in our house."

Another constituent writes:

"We do not intend to expound on the rights or wrongs of the homosexual person, nor can we pass judgement on these individuals. We do, however, condemn legislation by our elected members to allow these people positions of influence in Christian institutions. We would like to see you, Mr. McKessock, use your influence to have a recorded vote when this issue comes to the floor. Needless to say, we could not support you in the future if you were in favour of this bill."

Another constituent writes:

"I am writing to urge the powers that be to postpone the passing of Bill 7 in its present form. Much of the bill is good, but section 18 is deplorable. This will only promote the recognition of homosexual unions as marriages, thus eroding the status of normal marriages. Please, Mr. McKessock, oppose this bill. I think society really has enough problems."

Another constituent writes:

"I am opposed to this amendment as it tries to legitimize what is essentially immoral behaviour. I do not mean that the homosexual should be denied a livelihood, but that he himself, by his choice of lifestyle, has restricted some of the choices that he has available to him, and this is something we all have to deal with when it comes right down to the truth. Therefore, I hope that you will vote against this amendment when it comes up for third reading. It could open up a real can of worms. Thank you for all your hard work and support in the area in the past."

Another constituent writes:

"I would like to register my opposition to amendment 18 to Bill 7, sexual orientation. It is very vague and could lead to legal support to homosexuals and other sexual behaviour. The legislation could affect the traditional rights of legal groups to hire only those staff members whose lifestyle is faithful to beliefs and practices of the religious community.

"Such an amendment could remove the unique status of marriage and the family as a fundamental unit of our society. The amendment could lead to the eventual legalization of homosexual and lesbian marriages and child adoption. The government and other agencies could be obliged to extend all spousal insurance and other benefits of school and church to function with the moral standards of Canadians.

"I would like to thank you for your good government we have enjoyed compared to other parts of the world. Let us keep it that way."

The Catholic Women's League writes:

"At our executive meeting on Monday night, we discussed the abovementioned bill and wish to oppose this section of it. We feel that a clear distinction must be made when the phrase `sexual orientation' is used, as we are not in favour of promoting homosexual behaviour. This letter is on behalf of 158 ladies that belong to Holy Family Parish CWL. We urgently request the government to postpone any action on Bill 7 until the citizens of Ontario have been able to discuss it and express their views."

Another constituent writes:

"I understand that a bill in the provincial Legislature is about to be passed which would allow homosexuals and other sex deviates to teach in our schools, both Sunday and day school. I understand too that it is likely to go through because of our wonderful `Charter of Rights.' I, like many others, have little or no experience with these people, but being a war veteran, you can imagine that I have seen more than most people. It is hard for ordinary people to imagine the sexual drive of most homosexuals. I wish to register my objections to this bill being passed. I would also like to say that our Charter of Rights has become a door to allow criminals and other objectionable characters to do as they wish in our society."

16:50

Another constituent writes:

"I am opposed to section 18 Nos. 1-5 of Bill 7. How far do we go before the entire fabric of our society is rotted away?"

Another constituent writes:

"It has been brought to my attention by the Methodist Church, Williamsburg, that a bill is about to be passed. I believe it is called the sexual orientation amendment to Bill 7. I would earnestly plead that you oppose this. Already, many of our young children, especially boys, have been sexually abused by teachers, and even a boys' choir leader, in our area. I fear that those acts may become even more numerous if those types of people are allowed more freedom. For the sake of our children, please oppose this amendment."

Another constituent writes:

"As a concerned citizen of Ontario, I am asking you to exercise your power to have the sexual orientation amendment removed from Bill 7 before it is passed into law. I feel sure the children and youth of our community who already suffer because of the `new morality' trend will suffer more if our social agencies, day care centres and schools could be forced to employ those whose manner of conduct and sexual orientation are incompatible with the established purposes and guidelines of the institutions.

"I do not write this to fight the homosexuals. I feel deeply sorry for anyone in this condition, but I do feel that they presently enjoy the same legal rights and freedoms, such as employment, free speech, freedom of association, freedom to exercise their religious preference and to conduct their own business, as the rest of us do. I humbly ask you to use your power to have the sexual orientation amendment removed from Bill 7 before it becomes law. Could I have a reply? I am a concerned citizen."

Another constituent writes:

"May we please place before you our concerns about the proposed amendment. We agree that it is proper to remove discrimination in areas over which people have no choice -- race, colour, place of birth, age, sex. It appears that the gay world seeks extra-special status, to have the privilege to choose their lifestyle yet deny the balance of society the privilege to choose our response. We also are dismayed at the way these amendments are being pushed into law. May we ask that these six amendments in section 18 be removed before the final reading. We shall continue to pray for all who govern us and ask that God's wisdom will prevail."

Another constituent writes:

"I wish to voice my opposition to Bill 7, the insertion of `sexual orientation' in place of `sex.' In my estimation, it makes this a potentially dangerous bill. `Without discrimination of sex' refers to male or female individuals; `without discrimination of sexual orientation' transforms this bill to condone homosexuality.

"Such protection for an employee who is an unwise choice could place your children and mine, as well as our grandchildren, at the mercy of a janitor, teacher or club leader whose unwanted fondlings could traumatize them for life. We daily continue to search for unscrupulous abductors and murderers who have violated the trust of our children.

"Alteration of this bill would lead to escalation of these conditions and legislate away the protection of the innocent. As the bill presently reads, all people are covered where discrimination is concerned. Let us preserve it as such."

I have one more letter; then I shall move on to my other two points.

A constituent writes:

"With regard to the amendment introduced and carried to insert `sexual orientation' in the Human Rights Code of Ontario -- specifically referring to Bill 7 to conform to Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- I am writing you out of concern.

"If this amendment is legislated, it could mean the end of Boy Scout and Girl Guide groups as well as other children's and young people's clubs, simply because parents will not allow their children to belong."

I will stop reading those letters at this point. It would be a good point to move on to the second part, in which I would like to talk about the concerns of the Big Brothers.

The Big Brothers of Canada cannot understand why the term "sexual orientation" is being added to Bill 7, which is to bring the Ontario statutes into conformity with section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when the Canadian charter makes no reference to sexual orientation.

This whole idea was soundly defeated at the hearings held at the time of the charter. The Big Brothers of Canada, who have 175 member agencies in Canada, 65 of them in Ontario, do not want this amendment to pass. Their policy reads: "No known homosexual shall be approved as a Big Brother." They want to keep it that way. They believe private organizations should have the right to uphold and maintain their own values and beliefs. They believe the communities, the families and the children they serve expect them to deploy volunteers who reflect the dominant values of the country.

Now I will move to my third point. I would like to deal with the political ramifications as I see them. I see it as politically dangerous to pass section 18. If it is passed, it would be a foot in the door for the homosexual community. Other changes are being made in Bill 7 that I am not very happy about either, which relate to section 18 and why I think it is politically wrong to pass this section.

For a moment, let us look at the marital status sections of the bill. Sections 3, 7, 9, 10, 13 and 15, deal with expanding the definition of "spouse." At present, "spouse" in this act means "a married partner of the opposite sex." These sections will now make it legal to describe a spouse as a person of the opposite sex with whom you live in a conjugal relationship outside of marriage. Here is where the trouble starts. If section 18 is passed today, it will be a very short time until you will have the homosexual community back wanting the words "opposite sex" removed from the section. How are we going to get around that one and say it is not discriminating? We are treading on dangerous ground, and I will get into that more as I move to my personal views on the issue.

The Human Rights Code is an important piece of legislation. It is important that everyone be treated fairly without prejudice and without discrimination, but we have to start from a base. We allow people to drive cars in this country; we do not discriminate against them unless they break the law laid down by the government and drive too fast or drive recklessly.

When it comes to moral issues, such as those we are dealing with in section 18, God laid down the laws years ago. It is laid out for us in the Bible, and it is quite clear that homosexuality is wrong. It is not one of those grey areas. It is brought to our attention at least six times in different books. Homosexuality interferes with God's plan for the family. Woman was made for man and man for woman, and no other mix works, according to the plan for the world.

It is often said that one sin or one wrong is no greater than another, and we have a tendency to pit one against the other. Two wrongs do not make a right, and it is up to each of us to try to uphold God's laws the best we can and, in so doing, make this country and this world a better place in which to live.

Education is so important. As a government we spend a lot of time and money on education. The family unit is the one that gives our population the greatest education; it sets its goals and gives it its moral standards. Let us do our part to keep the family on track, to keep it strong. Let us not do anything that will make it more difficult for the next generation.

17:00

God gave us life and allows us to live, and he does not discriminate against us if we live within his laws, just as we do not discriminate against the motorist if he lives within the law. I have been taught in my upbringing that I am to obey God's laws first and man's second if there is a conflict. I see a conflict in this bill.

What has made our country strong? This country was built and based on our ancestors' strong faith and belief in God. If I were to vote for this amendment, I would be going against everything I believe in and have been taught. I would be watering down not only my faith and my beliefs but also those of my ancestors.

Therefore, it is a very easy decision for me to vote against the amendment to Bill 7. I urge all members to think about our ancestors, the Big Brothers, those in the position of hiring people to teach our children, parents and the family and the direction we receive from our Creator and vote against the amendment.

Mr. Bernier: I will begin my remarks by complimenting the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) on his remarks. I share his feelings and I admire him for standing up as he has done today to express in a very clear, forthright way his opposition to this amendment. I know how difficult it is for him as a member of the Liberal Party, the party that brought in this amendment and is supporting this amendment, with the support of the New Democratic Party. I admire his stand. I wish there were more members of the Liberal Party in their seats today to hear what he had to say and the sincerity with which he presented his arguments and his case.

I am a little shocked as we sit in the Legislature today debating this section, which I will oppose as long as I have strength in me and blood runs in my veins, because this is totally foreign to my way of life, to what I was taught and to my relationship to a whole family unit.

To have the clock in the Legislature stop at 10 minutes to four symbolizes that there is something wrong in the whole system. In my 20 years here, I have never seen the clock stop at Queen's Park, but it stopped today when we are debating this very contentious section of this bill.

I am disappointed that the Attorney General is not in his seat to hear the debate this afternoon, but I want to put section 18 on the record so those who will be reading this debate will have a clear definition of what we are talking about.

"18 (1) Section 1 of the Human Rights Code, 1981, being chapter 53, is amended by inserting after `sex' in the fourth line `sexual orientation.'

"(2) Subsection 2(1) of the said act is amended by inserting after `sex' in the fourth line `sexual orientation.'

"(3) Section 3 of the said act is amended by inserting after `sex' in the third line `sexual orientation.'

"(4) Subsection 4(1) of the said act is amended by inserting after `sex' in the fourth line `sexual orientation.'

"(5) Section 5 of the said act is amended by inserting after `sex' in the fifth line `sexual orientation.'"

For those reading Hansard, that is the amendment we are debating at length today, expressing our views. When the vote is taken, which will likely be tomorrow, I am sure we will have a chance to clear our conscience that we have done in our own way what we feel is right.

Let me repeat that Bill 7 was a government bill. The amendment was introduced in the committee stage, as we are now aware, by the New Democratic Party. It is fair to say that this bill has aroused concern from Ontarians right across this province, from Windsor to Ottawa and as far west and as far north as my own riding of Kenora.

As we are all aware, Bill 7 was originally designed to bring various laws, including the Human Rights Code, into conformity with the federal Charter of Rights. I had no problem with the original bill, and I think most of us in this Legislature would have supported that original bill. It would have gone through the committee stage without any problem at all because it was the right thing to do, the correct thing to do at this time.

I sense that there was and would have been strong support from all sides of the House; but at the last minute, the 11th hour, an amendment was introduced in committee by the New Democratic Party, introduced without any public input and embraced by this Liberal government, which shocks me a little, to say the least. Here we have a government that introduced what I felt was a very important piece of legislation. They introduced it in good faith and then accepted an accord amendment that turns this bill into a whole new issue.

Listening to the eloquent remarks of our Attorney General this afternoon in defence of this amendment, I cannot fail to criticize him for bringing in a major piece of legislation; if he thought this amendment was important enough to be in the bill in the first place, why was it not there in the first place? That bothers me considerably, having him stand up today and so eloquently defend an amendment that was brought in at committee stage, so flippantly brought in, I might say, and having him go to great lengths to defend the amendment and to lecture to us on the moralities and so on, as he is so able at doing.

I also want to condemn the Attorney General for his reference to the Irish when he was talking about this amendment. That was a poor comparison, and it is awful that he would use it. I know he was looking for some simple comparison, but to use the Irish of our country and compare their way of life with the homosexual way of life and how they are discriminated against was very inappropriate.

An hon. member: Pretty shoddy.

Mr. Bernier: Pretty shoddy is right; very shoddy. I find it hard to take his arguments seriously. He introduced the original bill and he embraced with enthusiasm section 18. I want to express my own disapproval of that section. I certainly will vote against it, as we will see tomorrow evening.

I would like to do something similar to what the member for Grey has done, because we share a common feeling and a common belief, and read into the record some of the comments I have received over the past several months. To begin, I would like to read into the record a news column I prepared on October 26, 1986, and sent to all my newspapers on this issue. This will set the stage as far as I am concerned with respect to Bill 7:

"During the fall session of the Ontario Legislature, members will debate and vote on the Liberal bill titled Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1986, commonly known as Bill 7. I have received numerous letters and phone calls and personal contacts from citizens of the Kenora riding regarding the contents of this bill and will attempt to explain, as I know it, and point out reasons for my opposition to the amendment.

"The Ottawa Centre NDP member, Ms. Evelyn Gigantes, made an amendment to the original bill which would prohibit sexual discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. She claims that the NDP members have held the same position for many years as convention delegates at their party assemblies and as elected members of the provincial parliament and that there is nothing new in their present position in that regard.

"Presently in Ontario homosexuals have the same rights as other citizens. They may and they do exercise their right to assemble, to speak, to write or to go to any church they wish. They may own property, enforce contracts and go about the day-to-day business as any citizen of this province without limitation or restriction. They can work where they choose. They cannot be fired for being homosexual.

17:10

"In this province, one may disagree with another's sexual preferences without denying them their rights. To include sexual orientation in the Human Rights Code of Ontario would, in my opinion, change the definition of a family as is accepted at present by the vast majority of this province and this country. It would provide a functional definition, which does not require heterosexuality as its foundation and would provide homosexuality as a legitimate and alternate lifestyle on the same basis as the traditional family.

"This amendment by Ms. Gigantes would mean that in addition to the rights we all hold, homosexuals would receive special rights recognized in law that would effectively enshrine their lifestyle and their behaviour. No other group is protected under the law based on behaviour. The Charter of Rights protects us all based on identity. Alcoholics and compulsive gamblers do not qualify for special rights, nor should homosexuals.

"The Charter of Rights states that everyone has the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, sex, religion or age, etc. It refers to discrimination on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation. The first would be true discrimination; the latter is not discrimination at all. Sexual orientation refers to an optional lifestyle. Sex refers to inherent characteristics of being male or female.

"Refusing to pass laws that will give special rights to homosexuals is not discriminating. Do we want to see homosexual marriages legalized or homosexual couples adopting children? A generally held opinion by our party members and the public alike is that homosexuals should have no more rights or no fewer rights than any other person. To enshrine special rights in the law for them is improper and is unnecessary."

That was the text of my newspaper column which appeared in the newspapers of the Kenora riding. I received many letters, as did the member for Grey, literally hundreds, and phone calls by the dozens. Just last weekend, we recorded something like 32 phone calls at my home in Hudson, and the letters have numbered in the hundreds.

I went through them carefully to give members a sample of what the people are saying. I would like to put that on the record too. As the member for Grey pointed out, the Big Brothers organization has very strong feelings against this amendment.

I have a letter from the Big Brothers Association of Sault Ste. Marie. In the letter, dated November 14, 1986, the central paragraph reads:

"Our Big Brother program in Sault Ste. Marie has assisted fatherless boys since 1969. Our success in helping these children have big brothers in terms of friendship and guidance has been gratifying.

"It would appear that with the passage of Bill 7, our boys could very well be subjected to undue risk. The Big Brother policy standards do not permit homosexuals to be approved as Big Brothers. The matter is further exacerbated by the opinion of many mothers in our organization who, given the choice, would surely not approve of a big brother for their son who would possess tendencies of a homosexual nature."

That letter was signed by the executive director, Al Ethen, and the president, Lorie Bottos.

On November 19, I received a letter from the Toronto Free Presbyterian Church directed to myself. I wish to put that letter on record, because it is a well-written letter and speaks for a big constituency out there. It reads as follows:

"We wish to express our serious concern at the possible inclusion of the words `sexual orientation' in the Human Rights Code through the proposed amendment to Bill 7. If passed, the amendment will have the effect of granting special privileges to one section of society not enjoyed by others.

"The provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee freedom from discrimination based on morally neutral and unchangeable status. The words `sexual orientation' would create special privileges with respect to behaviour and a behaviour that is not beneficial to the wellbeing of the province as a whole.

"A recent study has shown that in the majority of cases, homosexuality is an acquired behaviour. The basic human rights of homosexuals are guaranteed like the rest of society. In the unfortunate cases where people are born with a mental or physical abnormalities, they are also covered in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the words `mental or physical disability.'

"To add the words `sexual orientation' is at best a redundancy and at worst a dangerous precedent. Should we accept smokers and excessive drinkers to be added also to the Human Rights Code because, in the correct climate, their behaviour may adversely affect their chances of employment? Where should the line be drawn? Should criminal behaviour also be covered? The Ontario Legislature would be most unwise to go beyond the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

That letter was signed by Frank McClelland, pastor, on behalf of the session members and friends of the Toronto Free Presbyterian Church.

I am a practising Catholic. I picked up a church bulletin in my own riding on October 19, and in it was a message to all the parishioners in the Sioux Lookout-Hudson area. It reads as follows:

"The Bishops of Ontario have issued a statement recently about Bill 7, presently before the Ontario Legislature. Subsections 1(1) to 1(5) amend the Human Rights Code in Ontario prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of a personal sexual orientation."

It goes on to say:

"The bishops support the human rights of all members of society, obviously, but the church and Christian tradition distinguishes between orientation and behaviour. Homosexual behaviour or lifestyle is contrary to our morality. Bill 7 lends itself to unacceptable applications and will have the social impact of promoting the recognition of homosexual unions as marriage, which gives family benefits.

"Another point is that Bill 7 is a so-called omnibus bill, which means all sorts of things going together to speed up things and there is no consultation or discussion. The bishops have asked their parishioners to send handwritten personal letters to the Premier of the province of Ontario expressing their point of view on this issue."

That church bulletin, dated October 19, 1986, was signed by Father Radamaker and sent to all the Sacred Heart parishioners in the Sioux Lookout-Hudson area.

We are all aware of the Coalition for Family Values, a Toronto-based group. The comments of my colleague the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) made it very clear where he stood with respect to this bill, and he was very eloquent in protecting and preserving the family values as we all know them, at least as I hope we all know them, in this Legislature. They are values we all cherish and want to preserve.

On November 21, 1986, that group directed to all of us in the Legislature a very large brief with much information on this issue. They said, "We are concerned that this legislation is not in the best interests of the majority of Ontarians." They enclosed a copy of a summary of the most recent poll conducted by the Environics Research Group on this subject. Obviously, the vast majority of those surveyed do not believe homosexuality is an acceptable form of behaviour.

Going back to my own riding, personal letters flocked in on this issue, 100 per cent violently opposed. This letter is from Sioux Lookout; I will read only the first paragraph of it:

"On behalf of the members of the Sacred Heart parish council of the Catholic Women's League, we wish to express our opposition to Bill 7, section 18, subsections 1 to 5."

That was signed by Margaret Maskerine of Sioux Lookout.

The member for Grey made note of the bishop for Ontario, the bishop I know so well, the Most Reverend John O'Mara, Bishop of Thunder Bay, who wrote to me on October 17, 1986, and pointed out:

"At the recent meeting of the Ontario bishops, we issued a statement in which we protested the inclusion of the exemption of sexual orientation in Bill 7. This is a serious moral issue that strikes at the heart of our understanding of family life, for while we work to promote the human rights of everyone, we cannot accept that homosexual unions be given the protection of law by the province. Furthermore, this matter has never been given public debate."

He enclosed a copy of the statement, which the member for Grey read into the record, and I will not repeat it, but it is a very strong condemnation of this section, urging us not to support the amendment.

17:20

This is a letter from Dryden, dated October 30, 1986:

"I would like to voice my objection to Bill 7 regarding homosexuals gaining family status. To subject a child or children to this abnormal upbringing is in my opinion very unwholesome and not in a child's best interest. It is not a healthy environment to place a child in, who will be raised to think that this is a normal way of life. I hope that this will never be allowed in Canada, not just Ontario."

It is signed by Mrs. M. Davies.

Another letter is from a remote little town way up in the boondocks, as people from southern Ontario would say, of the great northwestern part of the province, where they are aroused by this legislation. This lady wrote to me from Eagle River:

"I applaud your letter in the legislative report from Queen's Park in the Dryden Observer this week regarding Bill 7. I am definitely against homosexual marriages, legalized, or adoption by homosexuals. I wrote a letter, as you suggested, to the Attorney General and the Premier. Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention so we can speak out. You have our support on this particular issue."

That was signed by Mrs. Sandra Peck, general delivery, Eagle River.

There is another letter from one of the remote mining communities of northwestern Ontario, one of the areas that is still producing gold and that has produced gold for the balance of payments of this province since the 1930s, another northern community that has been aroused by this bill. It says:

"I am opposed to section 18 of Bill 7 now before the provincial Legislature which refers to `sexual orientation,' because in its present wording it may also embrace homosexual behaviour, which is contrary to Christian morality. Any law that invites such a lifestyle will cause great harm to society. I recommend that prior to the passage of the proposed Bill 7, widespread consultation and discussion take place with the people of the province of Ontario."

That was signed by Ms. Elizabeth Anne Tubb, Box 429, Red Lake.

We are all aware, as the member for Grey pointed out, of the position of the Catholic Women's League. I am pleased to say my wife, Marjorie, has been an active member of that organization for some 30 years. She is the secretary-treasurer of one organization in our own home town. The letter I have here from this organization came from St. Joseph's parish in Dryden:

"Regarding Bill 7, we as national citizens of Judaeo-Christian background look at this proposed legislation with abhorrence. It violates the very fundamental law of life, and instead of sexual orientation it is disorientation, leading to every social evil. We as members of the Dryden Catholic Women's League, 160 strong, wish to voice our objection to its enactment."

That was signed by Mary Wilkins and the acting director, Father McKee.

I have a short note from Kenora, in the great northwest. It says:

"I hereby express my strong opposition to section 18 and numbers 1 to 5 of Bill 7. The ambiguity of the phrase `sexual orientation' needs to be clarified."

That was signed by Philip Lamarche, RR 1, Kenora.

Another note came to me from Dryden. It is dated November 2, 1986; so it is a relatively recent letter. It caught the imagination and the interest of my constituents. They write -- there are a number of names on this -- "We are not in favour of amending legislation to give homosexual unions the status of families in our society." That short note was signed by Betty Witzell, Jean Thompson, Vivian Cole, Molly Paradis, Elsie Maltais, George Bruce, lrene Patterson and J. Johnson, all of the Dryden area. They are violently opposed to this amendment.

The last note I would like to put on the record comes from Sioux Narrows, a small tourist town on Highway 71, about 40 miles from Kenora. There are about 200 people there during the winter and there might be 5,000 there in the summer, because it is a really fine recreational area, but with strong family feelings and, of course, strong family ties.

This lady says:

"I understand there is a bill being considered known as Bill 7, which would, among other things, give homosexuals the same rights as families. I am confident you do not approve of that part of the bill. To have two men or two women considered a family is completely contradictory to nature and to God's law. After all, the Bible says a man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his wife, not another man. The law cannot regulate whether a person is a homosexual or not, but it can and should regulate their behaviour when it affects the rest of society."

That is a well-written letter by Mrs. Mary Anne Hoffman, Box 270, Sioux Narrows.

This is a feeling from people far apart in Ontario, way up in northwestern Ontario, an area close to the Manitoba border; 100 per cent are against this amendment to Bill 7.

In closing, I want to express again my strong disapproval of this section. I intend to vote against it. Section 18 should be struck from the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: I rise to speak on Bill 7, the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, particularly section 18. I listened very attentively this afternoon to the Attorney General as he gave his reasons for the amendment coming before the Ontario Legislature. He was rather convincing and eloquent in his delivery, but I have some reservations about this amendment and I have some difficulty in accepting it. Although I see that there is a reason for the amendment to be put forward, I cannot accept it.

I refer members to the Human Rights Code, chapter 53, 1981, and the definition of "harassment because of sex in accommodation." I want to read this into the record:

"Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment because of sex by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building."

I interpret that to mean the landlord is the one who is creating the sex problem; he is having sex with a tenant, you might say. Let me just read that again:

"Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment," and this is in accommodation, "because of sex by the landlord...." To me that is a poor --

Ms. Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I think the member misunderstands the amendments. They do not relate to sexual harassment, and he is speaking to a clause that is not affected by the amendment before us.

Mr. Chairman: I do not believe that is appropriate.

Mr. Haggerty: That is right. I do not believe the member for Ottawa Centre is getting the message of what I am saying. The Human Rights Code now speaks of harassment because of sex in accommodation. That is the interpretation given by the legal minds. If we look at that member's amendment, it changes that to "sexual orientation."

Interjection.

Mr. Haggerty: She says no.

Ms. Gigantes: I believe the member is out of order. He is suggesting the amendment relates to a section that is not under discussion.

Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding that he was referring to the Human Rights Code amendment.

Mr. Haggerty: That is right, and that is what we are dealing with in this section, an amendment to the Human Rights Code. I understand it perfectly well. If the member will just show her patience for a while, I will get through to her.

What I am looking at in this section is that perhaps it should have read that every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment from the landlord or agent, or an occupant of the same building.

17:30

Ms. Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: If you will look at the amendments before us, which relate to subsection 2(1), section 3, subsection 4(1), section 5 and section 1, you will see that the member is addressing a section of the Human Rights Code which is not before us. He is addressing subsection 6(1) of the code. If you look at the amendments before us, subsection 6(1) of the code is not under consideration by this Legislature at this time. Subsection 6(1) will not be affected by the amendments before us.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman: The Attorney General, who is carrying this bill, went on a free-wheeling expedition through the whole realm of human rights. The member should have the same right to do so. The member for Grey did the same thing, and I intend to do so. I do not believe the member for Ottawa Centre is carrying the bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member has a point of order.

Mr. Warner: Get the rule book.

Ms. Gigantes: My concern can be very simply put. I believe the member mistakenly believes we are looking at an amendment to subsection 6(1) of the Human Rights Code. Mr. Chairman, if you look at the sections which we are considering amendments to, they are section 1, subsection 2(1), section 3, subsection 4(1) and section 5 of the Human Rights Code. We are not dealing with an amendment to subsection 6(1), and I hope you will call the member to order.

Mr. Chairman: I do not believe it is a proper point of order. The member is developing his argument. He may be drawing parallels or analogies. He has not been the only one. I believe he should carry on developing his argument. He is quite in order.

Mr. Haggerty: I listened to the member for Ottawa Centre and she covered the ball field; she covered the work place, the occupancy of rental units, everything. From that, I took it that this bill perhaps would go even further than that.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I do not want to intervene on the member's comments, but I believe he should be aware that there are five amendments to section 18 now before the House in committee. We would all be very pleased to hear his comments on those amendments that are before us. At another time, we would be very pleased to hear his comments on the old Human Rights Code or anything else he has, but it would be helpful if we could get him to address those.

Mr. Chairman: It is my opinion that the member is in order in the context of the debate and the comments that have been made this afternoon in the chamber.

Mr. Haggerty: I will ignore the member for Ottawa Centre and continue.

If we take a look at the equality of rights under the Charter of Rights -- and I would like to read that into the record so we get a clear understanding of that -- it says in subsection 15(1) that there is equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law. It says:

"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

One can agree with that. The word "sex" in there means gender; it does not define a sexual act.

The Attorney General also brought in articles regarding discussions in the United States, and I was concerned about that. I was also concerned about his comments on the Irish. Of course, the Irish can take a joke now and then, and we can be just as tough as anybody.

In the election of 1971, when the Liberal Party took a position in support of complete funding to separate schools, a writ had been issued and we were going to the polls, I had calls from local and Toronto reporters. They called me up and said, "What is your religion?" I said, "What has that got to do with it?" They said, "Is your family from the north or from the south of Ireland?" I said, "What has that got to do with support for the separate schools?" They said, "We noticed in the Parliamentary Guide, it does not mention any church you are affiliated with." I said: "No, but what does it say? It says, `of Christian faith.'"

I look at this amendment to the bill. In Canada, particularly in Ontario, perhaps one of the first settled provinces in Canada, there are certain moral and spiritual principles upon which this great nation was founded and which are deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition.

I will quote something from a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. Some will ask why I want to bring in the Supreme Court of the US. If we go back to the early days of the history of the United States, and particularly of Upper Canada, much of our legislation was derived from the British. The Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, you name it; it is all there. The two countries are not that much different, but this was a case before the Supreme Court of the US.

It is Bowers, Attorney General for the state of Georgia, versus Hardwick. It is a case where a homosexual couple carried on an act within their private residence, with consent between the two parties. It was argued on March 31, 1986, and the decision of the Supreme Court was on June 30, 1986. This is the decision of the Supreme Court, although there was a split opinion on it.

"After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick brought suit in the federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute in so far as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that Georgia statute violated the respondent's fundamental rights, and the decision was held that the Georgia statute is constitutional."

It goes on to say:

"The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this court's prior cases involving family relationship, marriage or procreation bears any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. Any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable."

I put on the record the words of one of the noted chief justices of the United States, Justice Burger, who is well respected in law in the US. He said:

"I join in the court's opinion, but I write separately to underscore my view that in constitutional terms there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy. As the court notes, proscriptions against sodomy have very ancient roots. Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of western civilization.

"Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judaeo-Christian moral or ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. During the English Reformation, when powers of the church courts were transferred to the King's courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. In Henry III, Blackstone described the infamous crime against nature as an offence of deeper malignancy. `Take rape, then rape or a heinous act, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature and a crime not fit to be named.' Blackstone's Commentaries, the common law of England, including his prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and other colonies." I believe about 25 states, 50 per cent of the states, still have that law on their books.

17:40

"The Georgia State Legislature passed the statute issued here, and the statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somewhat protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside a millenia of moral teachings."

That was taken from a decision of the Supreme Court that upheld the laws in Georgia. As close as the ties are that the Americans and their history have to the British government, the British Empire or Britain itself, our ties here are that great too.

Every day we open the Legislature with the Lord's Prayer. As legislators, as lawmakers, we should uphold those good things that are in the text of the Scriptures.

Ms. Gigantes: Or Fred Young's prayer.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes. Elmer Sopha had something to do with that. It is too bad Elmer is not here now. He would be up here. I can imagine the long speech he would make. He would convince the member opposite that she is wrong.

I think of the Scriptures. I can bring in different things I have received from the Coalition for Family Values and other persons. I have had a great number of letters to which I had to respond. Thank goodness we now have computers so we can run them off quickly. We just put the address on and they are out. We do not have to spend that much time on them. My staff has been working over the past six months on this issue. It is an issue that the majority of people in Ontario do not support, nor do they support the amendment.

The more I look at the Scriptures, and without getting into it in detail, one can go back to the book of laws and read it. Whether or not one believes in the Christian beliefs, the thesis -- whoever the writers were -- is right on with the times. One can take all the statutes in this Legislature, in the Dominion of Canada and in the provinces and they would fill this. There are six pages that lay down the book of laws. Every piece of legislation that has come forward has come through the book of laws. Of course, we open the door year after year and make them a little different.

We talk about human rights. The human rights are there, but human rights must also be for the common good. We can talk about the problems we have now with a serious disease, a crisis right now, and that is AIDS. We should not be passing legislation to say: "Yes, you can live here. You have nothing to worry about. You are within the law." It does not resolve the problem that is out there. We have a serious problem out there for which there is no cure. It is going to be a risk for everybody in society. All one has to do is look at the US.

One can read the reports written just recently by the experts in this area warning us that it is a crisis and that something has to be done. What has to be done is that this proposed amendment put forward by the member for Ottawa Centre, on section 18, should be dropped from this bill.

The member sits there and smiles. She should go back to what I said originally. She should go back to the section of the Human Rights Code that includes harassment because of sex in accommodation. That refers to landlords or other persons living in a building. I would change that around, because I do not want to support it the way it is written. What it says is that the landlord is responsible, that he is the one promoting the sex issue; but he is not. We should change it around to say harassment by a landlord or agent or occupants of the same building because of the tenant's sexual behaviour. That is the way it should be.

The Charter of Rights does not give a definition of a sexual conduct, and there are reasons for that. The former Prime Minister of Canada said governments should not be in the bedrooms of the nation, and he was right when he said that. He was right when he put in the charter that you have no right to meddle in the private affairs of a home.

If this goes through, I can see that shortly you are going to have people come in and say, "You have given the homosexuals a special right such that they can do anything they want." People are going to say: "I am on drugs; I smoke marijuana. Under the Charter of Rights, is it not my right if I want to do it in a private home? I do not have to be bothered by the landlord or the tenant." We are just opening the door, because that is the next thing that is going to happen.

There is another option here. As much as you look at that amendment, there are other areas we should be looking at. We are saying the landlord has no rights either. Does he not have any right to be able to say who can come into that building, who are undesirables? We have to draw the line here someplace.

The other option that is available is that if this is the lifestyle these people want to continue with, then they have the chance to build a home if they want it, and nobody will bother them. But I am opposed to this section. I will not support defining a sex act, and that is one of the reasons I do not support it.

If I can get into the other area of why many Christians are opposed to it, there are good reasons for that. I cannot support the principle as it is in this amendment. The member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) said it was a government amendment; I think he said that. It is not a government amendment. It is a government bill. The amendment was proposed and accepted in committee, and that is why we are debating it this afternoon. I hope we can take a second look at this thing and perhaps refer it back to another committee of the Legislature that would come forward with a way to provide that protection.

I suggest that under the Human Rights Code we should put in tenants' behaviour. That should cover it: sex behaviour.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I wish to speak against this amendment. I am somewhat perplexed by the opposition of the government members. Apparently, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) did not get the right reading and brought forward a bill that his caucus is not supporting, or else he is running against the will of his caucus. It is unfortunate, but that is what happens with an inexperienced government.

I rise to speak against the bill with a great deal of concern, as this is a most complicated and sensitive issue, one that has two completely different points of view. Each side feels its view is the right one, and too often we are not tolerant of the other party's position.

I have always felt that a member of the Legislature has a dual responsibility. The first is to express his own personal opinion, based on the facts he is knowledgeable about and according to his conscience; the second is to express the views of his constituents.

On this amendment, I can honestly say I have nearly total support from the constituents in my riding. I have been contacted by telephone, by letter and in person. I cannot recall a single person telling me to support the amendment, and many dozens of constituents have expressed their concern about the proposed amendment.

I received calls from numerous ministers and priests: Reverend Gary Stopps, First Baptist Church, Mount Forest; Father Laherty from St. Mary's Catholic Church, Mount Forest; Father Bruce Hartleib from Arthur; Pastor Richard Smith of the Harriston church in riding of the member for Grey.

17:50

To my knowledge, there has not been a single person in my riding who has expressed support for the amendment. There have been dozens and dozens who have expressed concern.

I received two letters today, and I would like to quote from a small number of the letters as we are running out of time. They pertain to the amendment to Bill 7. One lady writes:

"I am no longer in your riding, as I was at the time of the last election, but want now to write in appreciation of your efforts and to wish you continued success pertaining to your opposition to Bill 7."

There is another letter expressing concerns about Bill 7:

"Please make my voice and that of my family heard in this regard so I can further thank God for the excellent government system and the work you personally do for our riding. I think it is very important to my life and wellbeing. Do not throw away your tradition of morality for the new morality. Stand up and be counted."

As for my personal position on this issue, I would like to make reference to an earlier debate in this Legislature. I refer to Hansard for Monday evening, November 30, 1981. I had the opportunity to serve on the standing committee on resources development that sat some 26 days in hearings and had more than 150 public submissions. We then debated clause-by-clause for nine sessions, a total of 22.5 hours, dealing with Bill 7, An Act to review and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario. We had a vote on the Monday evening. I would like to read an excerpt into the record:

"I do not take any pleasure in standing up tonight and speaking against any group, if that is what it is construed to be. I do not think I am speaking against a group -- I hope I am not -- although it will definitely be twisted to come out that way. I am speaking on behalf of a group of people that I represent who have different convictions and different beliefs and I feel quite strongly about them. For that reason I cannot support the amendment."

I would also like to quote from Hansard of the same date the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Ridden), now the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who stated:

"I know this party is going to have a free vote on this matter. I would think the NDP might do the same, although I am not sure, and I would hope that the Conservatives would allow a free vote on it."

Our party is going to have a free vote. I hope the party of the member for Grey will have a free vote, and I hope the party on the left will have a free vote. This is an issue that should be decided by the votes of individual members and not along party lines.

The member for Huron-Middlesex went on to say: "People cannot understand why the Conservative government is bringing in this kind of legislation." I throw it back and suggest that I cannot understand why his party is bringing it in.

I would like to highlight some of the concerns in regard to Bill 7 expressed by the Ontario Conference of Catholic bishops. This section was read into the record by the member for Grey, so I will not go into it in detail, except to say I support the concerns it expresses in its presentation. I would like to reiterate one section of it.

"We believe that Bill 7 in its present form will have the social impact of promoting the recognition of homosexual unions as marriages and also seriously restrict the freedom of churches, government, societies, businesses and schools to set criteria of conduct for their employees. Bill 7, if passed as it is, will erode the status of normal families by equating their legal status with that of homosexual unions, and so we deplore the attempt to pass Bill 7 without the widespread consultation and discussion which will permit the citizens of Ontario to express their will concerning it."

I make reference to Bill 30. It would have served this Legislature and our province well if we had taken the opportunity to discuss with our constituents and the people of the province the implications and results of the passage of that bill. It is passed now, but we should not follow the mistake of getting into another situation of a similar nature.

The bishops request the government to postpone any action on Bill 7 until such consultation has taken place. That makes sense.

I would also like to read into the record a quote from the Coalition for Family Values. They ask several questions to which, apparently, they cannot get answers.

"1. Would schools, day care centres or group homes be forced to employ those whose code of conduct and sexual orientation is incompatible with the established purposes and guidelines of the institution?

"2. Would the legislation affect the traditional rights of religious groups to hire staff members whose lifestyle is faithful to the beliefs and practices of their religious community?

"3. Would such an amendment remove the unique status of marriage and the family as the fundamental unit of our society?

"4. Would the family be redefined? Would homosexual and lesbian marriages be legalized, together with the adoption of children?"

That is one of the most important points I am concerned about. If it does not happen today, what about in the near future, five or 10 years from now?

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman: Fifty-three seconds.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am not sure I can finish in 53 seconds. With your permission, I would like to adjourn the debate at this time.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The House leaders asked me to inform the House that the business tomorrow will be consideration of Bill 7 in committee of the whole House, which is a change from what was announced last week.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Scott, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

November 25, 1986

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

USE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

WAFERBOARD PLANT

GASOLINE PRICES

NURSING HOMES

RESCUE OF SOVIET SOLDIERS

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

GOVERNMENT'S PERFORMANCE

RELEASE OF REPORT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

THE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET DIRECTIVES

FRENCH-LANGUAGE TOURISM MARKETING

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

NURSING HOMES

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

LAYOFFS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

DRUG PRICING

WASTE DISPOSAL

DRUG PRICING

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

PROPANE EXPLOSION

DRUG DISPENSING

WASTE DISPOSAL

ARTS FUNDING

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT