Hansard Transcript 1986-Dec-10 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Wrye: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As we begin this afternoon's sitting, before we get going, I would like to offer some remarks on International Human Rights Day. If the appropriate officials of the opposition parties want to offer some remarks, this might be the time to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As honourable members know, today is International Human Rights Day. On this day 38 years ago, the United Nations General Assembly approved without a dissenting voice the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and each year since 1951 this day has been commemorated as human rights day.

The declaration is an eloquent document committing to paper and enshrining into our international jurisprudence the highest ideals of men and women. The preamble to the declaration states that recognition of the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. The Ontario Human Rights Code, proclaimed in force 24 years ago, draws upon that statement.

At the time the declaration was proclaimed, the president of the General Assembly said that it was "the first occasion on which the organized world community had recognized the existence of human rights and fundamental freedoms, transcending the laws of sovereign states. Millions of people all over the world will turn for help, guidance and inspiration to this document."

Almost four decades have passed since those words were spoken. As we all know, many are the sovereign states in the world today that totally disregard human rights and fundamental freedoms. In that respect, I had the privilege of joining a number of my colleagues from this assembly earlier, during noon hour, on the steps of the Legislature, in support of a demonstration by the Ontario Legislature Committee for Soviet Jewry.

The disregard of the declaration's principles invites a callow cynicism for the observance around the world of human rights generally and the loyalty to the universal declaration specifically. To purge this cynicism, we are compelled to remember the circumstances out of which this document was born. The true significance of this declaration is twofold, both in the nature of the rights and freedoms it proclaims and in the very fact of the proclamation itself.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came into being because of the events that occurred during and immediately before the Second World War. The articles in the declaration reflect the reaction of the international community to the horrors of that war, that dark, bleak period in human history. That conflagration proved to the whole world the close relationship between outrageous behaviour by a government towards its own citizens and aggression against other nations. It proved the relationship between respect for human rights and the maintenance of peace.

Out of that abyss, peoples, nations and governments rose up and proclaimed: "We shall not die, but live. Not only shall we live, but we shall also live in dignity, worthy men and women all, worthy societies and governments all."

From the depths of total, abject despair did the human spirit triumph to engraft for ever on the ideal course of human behaviour the concept that the highest value is the value of life: one breath, one heart, one soul, one human being, one life, one universe of inherent worth and importance equally for all.

Human rights, like respect, are more easily defined by their absence, but also like respect, they are the exquisite centre of our lives. In this Legislative Assembly, of course, we never forget this, because it is the one constant theme that courses through our laws, customs and traditions, even though, as legislators and as human beings, we may have our differences from time to time on the various manifestations of human rights.

At this time, on behalf of the government of Ontario, I wish to recognize December 10 as International Human Rights Day. Every member of this assembly is reminded that the foundation to our great democracy is continual commitment to human rights.

In addition, I urge members of this House to reflect upon the lesson to be learned from the very fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is proclaimed at all. That lesson is simply this: The human spirit is irrepressible, striving always to affirm its place as the highest creation and the strongest force on this earth.

Mr. Cousens: How much we take for granted in this society, in this civilization, where we have so much. We take for granted our wealth and forget about the poor. We take for granted our health and forget about the sick. We take our freedom for granted. Unless we have moments such as this to remember and consider the ramifications of the lives of those people who have nothing like the freedoms we have, nothing like the human rights we have here in Canada, then we as human beings fail to consider our responsibilities seriously.

On this day, December 10, International Human Rights Day, we have witnessed on the steps of the Legislature a moment in which many members of our Legislature and many people from across our province have taken part, remembering prisoners of conscience of the Soviet nation, Jews who are refused exit visas. This is one significant group in society whose rights are being forfeited by a government, laws and people who have no consideration of their needs. We in this land speak out on their behalf so that they might know we care about their needs and their plight.

We are very fortunate that there are many groups in our land that support the rights of others. Human rights have become an important Canadian issue taken into consideration by the Canadian Human Rights Foundation, the Latin American Working Group, the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America, Project Ploughshares, GATT-FLY, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canada China Programme, the Canada Asia Working Group, the Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility, PLURA and many other groups.

May we as legislators continue to give credence to all these issues as we stand up here and are counted as those who do not take for granted what we have and are willing to speak out on behalf of those who have no spokesmen unless we do it for them.

Ms. Gigantes: Article 1 of the international bill of human rights, which we know as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, reads as follows:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

As my party's critic for human rights, I am proud to express our support for the worldwide struggle for human rights that is celebrated by International Human Rights Day. It is clear that our responsibilities in this regard as legislators extend far beyond the boundaries of this province and this country. There are continuing massive violations of human rights in great parts of the world. We must speak out against such crimes, for that is what they are, as the entire civilized world spoke out in 1948, when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That is why many of us participated today in the demonstration marking the continued detention in the Soviet Union of thousands of refuseniks. That is why my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) went this summer to work with the people of Nicaragua in their struggle to establish democracy and prevent the return to power of people who systematically denied basic human and civil rights to the people of that Central American land.

It is also clear that we have a special responsibility to care for human rights here in Ontario, and it is especially fitting that we should today be marking the international effort to protect human rights while we are in the midst of debating legislation, Bill 7, which extends the recognition of human rights in our province, for we have to remember always that human rights must begin at home.

Ms. Bryden: As one of the three co-chairmen of the Ontario Legislature Committee for Soviet Jewry, which is an all-party committee, I express my 100 per cent support and that of all my caucus colleagues for the objectives of the vigil and demonstration going on out on the front porch outside the Legislature.

Since today is International Human Rights Day and since that demonstration is focusing attention on the plight of hundreds of Soviet Jews called refuseniks, who have been denied their human rights in the Soviet Union, and particularly their right to join their families in Israel and in other parts of the world, it is particularly appropriate that we observe International Human Rights Day in this way.

I congratulate the Ontario Legislature Committee for Soviet Jewry for organizing a roll call of refuseniks to bring to the attention of the world some of the outstanding men and women who are being harassed and persecuted. The court of world opinion is their only recourse. By participating in this demonstration and by speaking in the Legislature, we are assisting in bringing their cause to that court.

I hope our voices will be heard around the world and in the Soviet Union and that it will grant the refuseniks their right to exit visas and freedom from persecution.

13:43

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIVE FISHING AGREEMENT

Mr. Bernier: The Liberal government has embarked on what has been called a public information exercise with respect to a negotiated native fishing agreement. This important policy issue is being carried to the public of northern Ontario by senior civil servants of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

There are two important issues that must be addressed immediately. The first is the appearance of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the minister directly responsible for this matter, and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), who has a direct interest in this issue, at all public information meetings, since only they can answer the many questions that are being asked across northern Ontario. They must stop asking a civil servant to do their job. This is a very sensitive and complicated issue, which demands the attention of senior government ministers.

The second issue is for the government to find a funding mechanism to assist the many groups in northern Ontario that wish to make representation on this important resource issue. I remind the government that such funds were made available during the hearings of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. A funding precedent has been established to assist these various groups.

I urge the government to get on with these two important matters.

ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Mrs. Grier: I will today introduce a private member's bill calling for an environmental bill of rights in this province. Along with basic human rights must go the right to clean air, pure water and preservation of the natural environment. Citizens of Ontario need an environmental bill of rights so that they can play their part in protecting the environment and need no longer be dependent solely on government and industry to clean up pollution. Without giving citizens more power over decisions on these matters, the environmental damage that has been done in this province will never be repaired, and the damage will continue.

The bill of rights I am introducing clearly establishes people's rights to go to court to protect the environment and to be able to guarantee access to information. It would provide funding for interveners and it would protect workers who refuse to pollute from reprisals by their employers.

Ontario's public lands, waters and natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of those lands, waters and resources, the government of Ontario must conserve and maintain them for the benefit of present and future generations. We do not inherit the earth; we borrow it from our children. It is our duty to restore our part of the earth and to pass it on to our children in a better condition than we found it. An environmental bill of rights will help us all to play our part in doing that.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Mr. Offer: On the topic of International Human Rights Day, this day marks the 38th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document signed by 35 nations, including Canada and the Soviet Union. Outside the Legislature today, a vigil is being conducted and the names of Soviet Jews who are desperate to leave the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but have been refused, are being read.

Human rights is a prime issue the world over. The Ontario Legislature Committee on Soviet Jewry is asking the Soviet Union to honour its commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Helsinki accord, to cease harassment and imprisonment of innocent human beings and to grant those men, women and children permission to emigrate to Israel.

I thank all the members of the Legislature who have taken part in today's vigil, in particular, the co-ordinators of the event. Also, my co-chair colleagues, the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), are to be congratulated. Finally, special recognition is due to past co-chairpersons of the committee, David Rotenberg, James Breithaupt and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) for all they have done in bringing to the Legislature the issue of the deprivation of human rights for the Soviet Jews.

RESIGNATION OF ADVISORY COUNCIL PRESIDENT

Mr. Gregory: I am speaking as chairman of the standing committee on government agencies, whose mandate it is to interview and review the various agencies, boards and commissions in Ontario. We were performing that function this morning when we had before us Stanley W. Frolick, QC, president of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship.

At that meeting, very early in his statement, Mr. Frolick mentioned that he had submitted his resignation to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as of December 1, 1986, to be effective December 15, 1986. We had to be told at that committee by Mr. Frolick himself, without any announcement by the appropriate minister, of this happening.

I find it totally unacceptable that this has to happen. Mr. Frolick as yet has had no response to his letter of resignation. He has had absolutely no communication from either the Premier or the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro), none whatsoever. Yet in a very tacky 11th hour act of repentance, the Minister of Citizenship and Culture had one of her assistants pass a handwritten note to Mr. Frolick during the meeting, after all this had gone on, inviting him to a meeting tomorrow.

In my opinion, the minister and the Premier have been totally insensitive about this. Will the Premier table the letter of resignation?

MERCHANTS' USE OF FIREARMS

Ms. Bryden: On behalf of the members of my caucus, and I hope the rest of the House as well, I want to express my outrage and revulsion at the comments made yesterday by Norman Gardner, the newest member of the Metro police commission and seemingly a candidate for the title of vigilante of the year.

Mr. Gardner apparently believes in local store owners arming themselves to protect themselves against robbery attempts. According to media reports, Mr. Gardner thinks store owners in high-crime areas should be allowed to carry guns if they know how to use them. Mr. Gardner's views run completely contrary to the views of the police community, which unlike Mr. Gardner is more concerned with preventing criminal acts than with grabbing headlines.

I hope I speak for the members generally in expressing my outrage and shock at Mr. Gardner's remarks. They can do nothing constructive and can only encourage irresponsible acts of vigilantism.

ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE

Mr. Henderson: I would like to advise the members of this Legislature that one of my constituents, Alec Ko, president of the Etobicoke Chinese-Canadian Association and chairman of the Etobicoke City Twinning Committee, on invitation from the city of Ningpo in the province of Shey Shiang, is visiting the People's Republic of China to conduct economic and cultural exchanges with Ningpo, a coastal city of 4.5 million people and an area high on the agenda of China's economic reform.

Mr. Ko expects to return with a list of potential economic exchanges for Etobicoke businessmen. Prior to his return, he will visit Hong Kong to finalize plans for a manufacturing plant in Etobicoke to be set up by a major Hong Kong engineering firm.

M. Ko a fait avancer énormément les relations sino-canadiennes et a démontré un sens extraordinaire de leadership dans la communauté sino-canadienne d'Etobicoke. Nous lui faisons part de nos meilleurs souhaits à l'occasion de son voyage en République populaire de Chine et nous le remercions de sa constante implication dans le développement culturel et économique de la communauté des Chinois canadiens d'Etobicoke et de tout l'Ontario.

RECOGNITION OF DISABLED ATHLETE

Mr. Turner: I rise to pay tribute, and I ask the House to join me, in recognizing the accomplishment of Melissa Hague, a 16-year-old grade 10 student who lives at rural route 1, Lakefield, and attends Lakefield District Secondary School.

She has just been chosen as the Ontario Junior Citizen of the Year. The award will be presented in the new year by the Lieutenant Governor. The award comes from the Ontario Community Newspapers Association, which is located in Oakville. It all starts with the co-operation of the Ministry of Education. Applications are received from schools across the country through forms being mailed out directly, in answer to newspaper ads and so on.

Melissa should be recognized not only for the fact that she is an outstanding student but also because she is a paraplegic. Fortunately, she remains a fine athlete. Last summer she received a gold medal for winning the 400-metre race in the world championship games for the disabled in London, England.

I ask the House to join with me in paying tribute to this courageous lady.

13:53

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

JOHN CHARLES POLANYI PRIZES

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Dr. John Polanyi of the University of Toronto is in Stockholm, Sweden, today receiving the Nobel Prize, the most prestigious of awards for international or academic achievement. It is an award, as I am sure all members know, presented to those who "during the preceding year have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, economic science and peace.

Dr. Polanyi is being awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work in reaction dynamics. Dr. Polanyi, who joined the University of Toronto's department of chemistry in 1956, is only the fourth Canadian to receive a Nobel Prize.

It is with both pleasure and pride that I am announcing today the creation of the John Charles Polanyi Prizes, both to honour his achievement and to provide an incentive to a new generation of scholars to continue their important work in Ontario universities.

The government of Ontario will establish a $1-million endowment fund, with the income from this fund to be used to provide five prizes each year. In keeping with the Nobel tradition, they will be awarded on the basis of excellence in doctoral studies in the same five academic disciplines: physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and economic science.

The John Charles Polanyi Prizes will be awarded to students pursuing post-doctoral studies at Ontario universities supported by public funds. Anyone who is normally resident in Ontario and who has completed or is nearing completion of his doctoral studies in any recognized university in the world is eligible. Canadians, permanent residents or foreign doctoral candidates attending a recognized Ontario university and planning to continue their studies in Ontario are also eligible.

The fund and the awarding of prizes will be administered by a board of trustees consisting of the executive heads of the provincially assisted universities of Ontario. The value of each individual prize will be announced when the first awards are being considered.

On behalf of all members of this House, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr. Polanyi once again on his accomplishments. Dr. Polanyi has served as an inspiration to all of us, and all Ontarians are proud of him.

Mr. McFadden: I cannot think of any person more deserving of recognition of the type announced by the Minister of Colleges and Universities today than Dr. John Polanyi.

The awarding of the Nobel Prize to Dr. Polanyi today recognizes the outstanding contribution he has made specifically to the field of chemistry but also more generally to the academic community in Canada.

Dr. Polanyi's achievements have been well known for many years throughout the world. The awarding of the Nobel Prize in effect gives public recognition of his many attainments. I hope the creation of the John Charles Polanyi Prizes announced by the minister will be an inspiration, inducement and encouragement to many young Canadians to aspire to the kind of excellence and achievement that has been attained by Dr. Polanyi.

The members on this side of the House would like to congratulate Dr. Polanyi on the awarding of the Nobel Prize. We are very pleased the prizes created in Ontario for post-graduate studies have been announced today.

Mr. Allen: In response to the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities, I want to say on behalf of our party that we are extremely delighted with the announcement of the John Charles Polanyi Prizes. There is no person who more fittingly symbolizes the pursuit of excellence in our university system, a man who not only has pursued the most elusive aspects of chemistry in his work in reaction dynamics but has also shown a singular interest in interdisciplinary studies and in the life of the world outside the university, in particular with his concern about international issues, peace and disarmament.

It is particularly appropriate in the light of Dr. Polanyi's accomplishments that foreign students in our midst are being granted access to this series of prizes. It would be a more appropriate recognition of his interest in that regard were the minister also to announce the abandonment of visa fee schedules for foreign students in our province. It would also be appropriate to observe that the value of the prizes in question would be in proportion to the real inherent value of the undergraduate core education that our universities can dispense.

With respect to Dr. Polanyi's interest in interdisciplinary studies, it would also be appropriate to make a few comments on one of the fields that is indicated in the prizes; namely, literature. At the University of Toronto, the following has happened in that field. Over the past 10 years, the English department's budget has dropped by 19.7 per cent. There has been a loss of 14 professors in the department. There has been a cut of 75 courses, 29 per cent of the total program, in spite of the fact that there are 1,200 more students in the program, that the faculty-student ratio has risen 30 per cent and that there has been no increase in tutorial assistance for the department.

On an occasion when we recognize his accomplishments, I think Dr. Polanyi would find it very fitting if we observe that in his own university the pattern of underfunding has created a situation in which a core department has seen massive losses in its capacity to provide the excellent enhancement these prizes are meant to accomplish.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden), in the statement he just made, abused my privileges as the representative of the riding of St. David. He failed to point out that Professor Polanyi is a resident of the riding of St. David. I want him and all members to know that all residents of the riding are thrilled at Dr. Polanyi's recognition and are with him in Stockholm today in spirit.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order or a point of privilege. As I gather it, it is a point of information.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On a new point that relates to what was not even a point of information, I would like to point out that there was plenty of time left during statements. The member would have had ample opportunity if he had thought enough to get up and make those comments at the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker: We have had one point of information, which led into a debate. I will call for order.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Hon. Mr. Nixon: When the Provincial Auditor's annual report was tabled recently, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) assured the members that the government fully endorsed the auditor's role in ensuring that the expenditure of public funds meets the highest standards of efficiency.

As the members will know, the auditor's report deals with two programs in the Ministry of Revenue, and I would like to inform the members briefly of the actions taken to deal with his recommendations.

First, concerning the corporations tax branch, the auditor's overall conclusion is that it is well managed but certain "important areas of operations have been neglected because of insufficient resources." Consequently, he recommends a "substantial investment in technology and auditors" to "obtain greater returns in tax revenues for the province."

It is indeed the case that the branch has not had sufficient resources to allow it to deal adequately with the growth in tax work loads and complexity in recent years. However, as the deputy minister notes in his detailed reply, this problem was recognized by Management Board in February 1986, and the branch has been provided with $3.5 million in extra resources to increase revenue yields and operational productivity in an orderly fashion in line with the Provincial Auditor's recommendations.

More important, the auditor referred to the possibility of unauthorized access to confidential computer files. On this point, the ministry fully agrees with his substantive recommendation that such files should be protected by a security system known as the resource access control facility. Indeed, it is worth noting that the ministry has been engaged in this process for several years, and it was for this reason we were able to accelerate fitting RACF to the critical files cited by the auditor.

In conclusion, I do not claim that our data security is perfect, because no system, including RACF, can guarantee total protection without either prohibitive cost or severely restricting the use of data for business purposes. However, I can assure the members that the ministry is fully committed to maintaining the integrity of confidential information and that there have been no cases of loss or misuse of computer files in the ministry's possession.

Mr. McCague: I have a comment or two on the statement by the Minister of Revenue. I am glad to see he is acting quickly on the recommendations made by the Provincial Auditor.

With regard to the guaranteed annual income system and tax grants, I note the auditor may have recommended a $1.7-million saving by using direct deposit. The minister's deputy pointed out that the money saved by the Ministry of Government Services might well be used by the Ministry of Revenue in paying for notices to be sent to the recipients.

I would have thought the Gains payments, which are made monthly, could have been deposited directly without notification, but in the case of tax grants, in that they occur once or twice a year, the government probably would be obliged to notify the recipient that money had been deposited directly or to leave the system as it is in that regard.

I am not sure what the Minister of Revenue is telling us today, because he indicates in his written statement, "I shall not deal with this point here." I hope he will deal with it at some time in the future.

I am sure the minister has been reminded many times since he was made Minister of Revenue that some work is needed on RACF. I hope he will speed up the process, because he has known about it for a long time.

As for the additional auditors, which the minister mentioned very carefully here, I hope he is not going out to pester the small businessman for more money.

BROADCAST AREA EXPANSION

Hon. Ms. Munro: I am pleased to report that CJRT's Open College, music and information programs are now available to residents of northern Ontario. On December 1, CJRT-FM went on satellite. TVOntario played a major role in the hookup by providing space on Anik C.

I confess to some ministerial pride in this announcement for two reasons. First, TVOntario and CJRT-FM are agencies of my ministry. Second, our plan to expand CJRT's broadcast area is right on the schedule we announced in spring 1986.

At the moment, CJRT's signal must be decoded by cable companies. The first hookup was in Dryden. Before winter is over, we expect cable companies in Geraldton, North Bay, Kincardine, Huntsville and Thunder Bay to pull down the signal and offer CJRT to their subscribers too. This means northern Ontario residents will be able to tune in the station's music, news, information and children's programs. Of greater importance, however, is that they will also be able to register in the courses offered by Open College.

CJRT's Open College runs informal and university-level courses which are accredited by Ryerson Polytechnical Institute and Atkinson College at York University. For example, this year CJRT is broadcasting a university credit course called the History of Science and Technology. With a splendid bit of timing, the station is also running an income tax phone-in series in March and April.

I am delighted my ministry has played a part in extending CJRT's quality programs to northern Ontario residents. It was long overdue.

Mr. Shymko: Notwithstanding the pride we all take in the satellite hookup of TVOntario on December 1, that is a historic date because on the same day the president of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship resigned.

Although the minister confesses ministerial pride in the announcement of the TV hookup, she should admit and confess to ministerial shame in the shabby, demeaning and insulting treatment of the president of an advisory council representing 39.7 per cent of the population of Ontario, about whose resignation she has made no statement from December 1 to this day.

We listened to the laudatory remarks about Walter Pitman and the contribution he has made in his service to Ontario. It is shameful that apparently there are first- and second-class citizens. Apparently, there are those who have made significant contributions in the area of minority rights who do not deserve to have a statement from the minister, with complimentary remarks and congratulations about future services.

The minister has known of that resignation for almost a week since December 1, as has the Premier (Mr. Peterson), and it is truly insulting to all the minorities and ethnocultural communities of this province that to this day there has not been a statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind all members that the time for responses is to respond directly to statements made by ministers.

Mr. Wildman: On behalf of our party, I want to welcome the statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture and to say that this is a step in the right direction, towards making available to the north entertainment choices that are taken for granted in southern Ontario communities.

I want to point out, however, that this is the first time I have ever heard the communities of Huntsville and Kincardine included in northern Ontario. While I am happy that rural southern Ontario communities such as Huntsville and Kincardine are getting this service, it is a little silly to include them in an announcement about northern Ontario. I hope this is not an example of this government's understanding of the geography of the north.

I hope this minister will prevail upon her cabinet colleagues, particularly the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), to approve the northern satellite television network program that would make TV proceedings of the assembly available to small isolated communities in the north but also would make a full range of channels normally available to southern Ontario cable subscribers available in northern communities, because I understand it is currently stalled before a cabinet committee.

M. Pouliot: Je me joins à mon collègue le député d'Algoma (M. Wildman) pour féliciter notre chère ministre des Affaires civiques et culturelles (Mme Munro) pour ce qui ne représente qu'un simple début dans les communications pour le Nord de l'Ontario.

Ce que la ministre nous a annoncé est un manque de considération. D'un côté, le point est bien reçu, mais d'un autre côté, on a omis, comme on le fait toujours, de donner des services que le reste de l'Ontario prend pour acquis.

On encourage donc la ministre, non dans un futur lointain mais dans l'avenir prochain, à nous donner au Nord ce que les gens de l'Ontario prennent pour acquis depuis 25, 30 et 40 ans.

14:13

ORAL QUESTIONS

DOWNSVIEW REHABILITATION CENTRE

Mr. Gordon: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. As the member for Sudbury, I deal with a great number of injured workers and workers' compensation cases. I would like to inquire about exactly what steps the minister is prepared to take to deal with the very serious, documented allegations made by the Ontario Task Force on the Vocational Rehabilitation Services of the Workers' Compensation Board that injured workers are being treated as if they are in a concentration camp when they are in the Downsview rehabilitation centre.

What is the minister going to do to see that injured workers retain their dignity?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Let me remind the honourable member at the outset that this minister and this government set up the task force in the first place because of our real concern that we needed to get on with a new era in vocational rehabilitation.

I have just returned from Thunder Bay, where I played a role in opening a new regional office yesterday. While I was in Thunder Bay, I had the opportunity to discuss the matter of Downsview with Dr. Elgie. I expect to have more discussions.

I indicated earlier today to the press, and I want to indicate to the House in a general sense, that because of the comments I have read from Dr. Kummel's report, which I will be sharing with the House in the next few days, and the comments of the task force, I believe an external review is necessary. I expect to make a comprehensive statement in the House on this matter and a number of others pertaining to the Workers' Compensation Board at the beginning of next week.

Mr. Pope: Having represented in my nine and a half years as the member for Cochrane South more than 3,000 workers in the workers' compensation system, I am not at all supportive of what the minister has just said. It is not good enough to have another study. These are very specific, recent allegations. In the Toronto Sun this morning, the minister himself said he really was not surprised by the findings because the study group had been in contact with his staff during the studies.

If he is not surprised at the findings, if he has been made aware of the findings, why is he not taking specific action today to help these workers? What is he going to do right today --

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. Pope: I have not asked the question.

Mr. Speaker: You asked why he is not ready to take steps immediately to help the workers.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I might ask what the member's party did to help those workers over the 42 years it formed the government. This is the mess of the previous government that we are trying to clean up. That is why we have a task force in the first place.

I made that comment to a Toronto Sun reporter late last night. Very late last week, members of the task force made my staff and me aware of their concerns and what they were about to say. It was in that regard that I made those remarks to the reporter in question last night.

As I said to the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), I have been reviewing this matter with Dr. Elgie. I expect to see the board members tomorrow. Also, I believe the task force is coming in to see me early tomorrow morning. At that time, I want to review the comments the task force has made and its views and desires to have its mandate extended. I expect to have a comprehensive response to this and a number of other matters pertaining to the Workers' Compensation Board at the beginning of next week.

Mr. Pope: These are recent allegations. On June 5 and June 26, the standing committee on public accounts discussed the Downsview situation. The minister was made aware of the concerns of the members of that committee then. Since then, he has done nothing about the situation or about the specific allegations. He is calling for a further review. It is his mess and he is doing nothing to help the workers of Ontario. That is the truth of the matter. It is the minister's mess. These are recent allegations. He has an obligation to help the workers.

Can the minister explain why he is going to allow the following situations to continue: women being forced to shower in front of men; injured workers being shouted at by the doctors; drug and alcohol abuse being rampant; a psychological test that asks the following questions: "Are you very strongly attracted by members of your own sex? Do you believe evil spirits possess you at times? Does your soul sometimes leave your body? Do you believe that horses that do not foal should be beaten or kicked?" Is the minister going to solve this problem or close that place down?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: All of this must come as a great shock to my friend the member for Cochrane South, but it does not come as a surprise to members on this side. A lot of these concerns were being addressed in the days when I was first a member. It may come as a surprise to my friend, but a number of actions that have been requested are already being taken on some of those concerns.

For example, the psychology department at the board has asked an outside advisory body to review the Minnesota test to find out whether it is an appropriate test. I do not know that, and I suggest my honourable friend does not know that either. We are determined to get to the bottom of this. The board internally has had a number of task forces and a number of review teams in place. This has been one of them. We expect that out of the report of those review teams will come new activities for Downsview, activities that party never carried out when it formed the government. The decentralization that is taking place in some of the board activities will continue as it pertains to Downsview.

Mr. Andrewes: I have another question for the Minister of Labour and it follows on the rather damning evidence of the Majesky report. Is the minister prepared to stand in his place today and speak on behalf of workers in this province who now rightly refuse to go to the Downsview centre for treatment? Will the minister give them his assurance that their benefits will not be terminated and that they will be given access to treatment in some alternative facility in this province?

14:20

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is amazing to listen to that party discover the issue of rehabilitation. Where were they? It is an amazing admission.

We are working as diligently and as quickly as we can to begin to develop a decentralized system of offering some of the services that are provided at Downsview in local communities such as my own and that of the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), who was at the opening of the regional office in Thunder Bay yesterday. The workers would not have to come to Toronto, and we could reach out and provide those services there. However, we have to assure ourselves that the assessment, treatment and physiotherapy services and the range of services we seek to decentralize can be offered.

Active work is under way with the district health council in Sudbury to see whether that city can take up some of the services injured workers need.

I have no problem assuring the injured worker community that this government cares about ensuring that they are treated with dignity and respect and that they are treated effectively so that they can return to work.

Mr. Andrewes: Based on the evidence released in the report, the minister cannot expect injured workers in Ontario today to be subjected to the kind of physical and emotional stresses that are apparently the order of the day at Downsview. Does the minister not realize that he must now -- today, immediately -- establish alternative arrangements for treatment for these workers in their own communities or regions and decentralize the whole Downsview operation? Will he understand that and do that today?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I understand that it is important that the integrity of the system be assured to injured workers; let there be no doubt of that. We must do that, and I can assure the House that Dr. Elgie and the members of the board of directors of the Workers' Compensation Board, who held meetings in Thunder Bay on Monday of this week, share that concern. We must give the assurance to injured workers that when they come to Downsview they will receive the appropriate assessment and treatment.

It would be useful if I indicated to the House that as the board has been reviewing a new role for Downsview, a role that would accentuate the positive, it has been looking at a number of things where Downsview has acquired an excellent reputation.

For example, I spoke with an amputee yesterday in Thunder Bay. Within its hospital facility, Downsview has acquired, quite properly, an excellent reputation for assessment and treatment of amputees. I am very pleased to indicate to the House that this individual, who is a member of an injured workers' group in Thunder Bay, told me that the treatment and care he received in Downsview, medically and otherwise, was absolutely outstanding.

While my friend stands in his place and talks about the problems there, which I admit, that is not entirely the view of all injured workers.

Mr. Gordon: I am sure the minister recognizes that part of the problem Downsview has is that so many injured workers have to come from such distances, away from their families and friends and the support of their communities, the infrastructure and network that are so important in an injured worker's life. That is why I ask the minister to make a commitment to northeastern Ontario -- first, to injured workers; and second, to the jobs it would create -- that an injured worker's rehabilitation centre will be established in the north in Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This government is doing a number of things. It already has done and will continue to do a number of things the previous government never did. We have been in office for 18 months and we have opened two regional centres, one in Hamilton and one in Thunder Bay. We will be opening a third regional centre, in Ottawa, early next spring.

I have already indicated to my honourable friend, and I indicate again, that on a very active basis, particularly in northeastern and northwestern Ontario, the board is looking to be able to decentralize those services that do not need to be appropriately delivered in Downsview. Some services will have to continue to be delivered on a centralized basis, for example, some hospitals services which are best delivered in a centre of excellence.

My honourable friend makes a worthwhile suggestion, one that the WCB has already taken under advisement. When I make my statement to the House some time next week, members will see what actions this government intends to take in the next few months.

Mr. McClellan: One hardly knows where to begin with this issue and with this minister. I raised questions on November 6, November 20 and November 25, 1986, about the Downsview hospital, as a result of the allegations made by Ray Lebert. Now we have the bombshell from the Majesky task force, which confirms the allegations made by Mr. Lebert and adds that there are biker gangs selling drugs in the minister's hospital, there is prostitution in his hospital and there are documented, detailed cases of medical incompetence and of bully-boy tactics by his doctors.

Can the minister start by explaining to the House why he appointed the director of the hospital, Dr. Kummel, to do a whitewash investigation? Is it not a fact that his report was such a whitewash that even the minister has refused to release it?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Perhaps the honourable member was not listening, but I just said to the House that next week, as part of a comprehensive review and indication of the activities of this government, members will see the report prepared by the inquiry team, which included Dr. Kummel. I have no problem in reassuring my friend and reassuring the House that the report will be released. The only delay has been as a result of the effort to make sure we have the activities in place so that I can indicate in a comprehensive way to the House the direction in which we will be going.

I want to correct one comment the honourable gentleman made. I know he wants to make this my hospital, but I believe it is a hospital of the Workers' Compensation Board and the honourable gentleman would want to admit that.

Mr. McClellan: The minister can add cowardice and ministerial irresponsibility to his other attributes.

By way of supplementary, since the Majesky task force has documented that there is a total lack of privacy for women in their sleeping quarters and in their shower facilities, that women are forced to shower in front of men, that there is a lack of adequate or satisfactory medical care, that there is psychological harassment of patients, to which opposition members have already referred in their questions, can the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board, as this minister is, explain to us why Dr. Kummel has not been suspended from his duties instead of being empowered to investigate allegations against his own facility?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is interesting that the comments made by patients, as serious as those comments are, have become documents. It is a very interesting leap of logic that an allegation I might make or the member might make is being called something documented; that is something he and I would probably reject.

We in this government take these matters very seriously. There is a reason why this government moved to set up the vocational rehabilitation task force in the first instance. We should not lose sight of the fact that we moved, in the first instance, to set up this task force. We have noted with great concern the report of the task force, as we have noted with concern the earlier reports on Downsview.

We believe an appropriate review, an external evaluation not only of the specific allegations but also the general framework under which Downsview rehabilitation centre operated and ought to operate, is appropriate. I expect to announce the nature of that external review at the beginning of next week.

14:30

Mr. McClellan: In my welter of press clippings from Mr. Lebert's original accusations of misconduct and patient abuse at the Downsview rehabilitation centre, I am trying to find the various quotations from the Minister of Labour attacking and ridiculing Mr. Lebert for having raised those allegations in the first place. They are somewhere in this pile of Windsor press clippings. That was his initial response. His second response was to appoint the director of the hospital to conduct his own whitewash.

Before the end of this afternoon, will the minister do the decent thing and change the terms of reference of the Majesky task force so it is clearly empowered to investigate the Downsview hospital before any other injured workers are subject to its abuse?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want the opportunity to meet with Mr. Majesky, Ms. Minna and the other members of the task force. I will be doing so tomorrow morning. I expect that within the next few days we will have an appropriate response. We will also table the report of the inquiry team. My honourable friend can take a look at that report and offer, as I am sure he will, his reaction to it.

PENSION BENEFITS LEGISLATION

Mr. McClellan: The next question I have is for the Minister of Financial Institutions with respect to his systematic campaign of disinformation on the subject of inflation protection legislation in the Pension Benefits Act.

I have six press reports about the minister. The most recent, November 17, is from The Toronto Star: "Kwinter has said that he wants legislation to protect private pension plans from inflation." November 16: "Kwinter said that he wants legislation to protect private pension plans from inflation." The Globe and Mail, October 31: "Mr. Kwinter said in an interview he has proposed a package of pension reforms to cabinet that includes a regulation...requiring employers to protect pension benefits from inflation by indexing -- " them -- "to the cost of living."

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. McClellan: The question is, why did the minister make all these false and misleading statements to the press when he had no intention of bringing forward legislation that covered inflation protection?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I appreciate the member's historical review of my statements. They are not in any way inconsistent with the statement I made yesterday. I stated that we are committed to bringing forward mandatory inflation protection. The big problem is that we have the responsibility of doing it. To do it, we have to do it right. We are going to find out exactly the right way. When we get it, we will introduce it.

Mr. McClellan: Perhaps the minister misunderstood my question. The minister said it on November 16, November 17 and October 31 as well as in the Star on October 25: "The problem of inflation protection is `my highest priority. I will be introducing legislation as quickly as I can.'" In November 1986, again in the Star, "Kwinter said, if Ontario protects pensions against inflation, the other doubting provinces will eventually follow suit." This is arguing for his legislation with what is called his "cautious colleagues."

Mr. Speaker: And the question.

Mr. McClellan: Again, Mr. Speaker, respecting your ruling, the minister said on six separate occasions that inflation protection would be included in his legislation, which was introduced yesterday. Why did he fail to keep those promises?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Talking about misleading statements, and I assume the member has been alluding to that, I said I am in favour of bringing forward mandatory inflation protection. I also said I would be introducing legislation. I did not say I would be introducing all that together. As I am sure the honourable member will know, we have a situation where we have been negotiating for many years, both this government and the previous government, on a consensus document. The reason I brought this bill forward now and did not wait until I could do the mandatory inflation protection was that we have an obligation to the other partners in our consensus to make sure we get this into the record so we can implement it by January 1, 1987.

I do not want to be in the position of the previous government. In January 1984, the then Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), announced he was going to bring forward mandatory inflation protection. He subsequently had to retreat until he totally abandoned that concept.

We are going to bring it forward. The member has my commitment on that, but we want to bring it forward right.

Mr. McClellan: I have one more quote by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations; it is dated September 1986 and comes from the Globe and Mail: "The Ontario government will act unilaterally and place inflation protection into its act, Kwinter said. No other province agreed to this plan, because it would discourage the growth of private pension funds."

Is the minister saying that he was misquoted, that his words were twisted, that he was distorted on six separate occasions by these two illustrious newspapers? Or is it rather the fact that the minister was making completely false statements in the campaign as a matter of systematic disinformation and that he had no intention of keeping his promises, as he has no intention of keeping his promise now?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the member was trying to use his words carefully.

Mr. McClellan: Answer yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is not a yes or no answer. We have a situation where that role model, that paragon of government, the New Democratic Party government in Manitoba, has categorically refused to bring forward mandatory inflation protection. Every other jurisdiction in this country is refusing to do it. We are the only province that has said in its House, not that we are looking at it but that we are going to bring it forward. We will bring it forward; but when we bring it forward, we will do it under the advice of Mr. Pilkey, Mr. Friedland and Mr. Jackson. When that happens, we will bring forward a plan that will be reasonable.

I am sure all members will know, and I think the NDP members have ignored the fact, that only 39 per cent of the workers in Ontario are currently covered by private pension plans. Those private pension plans are voluntary, which means that unless we get the plan sponsors to go along with us, they will abandon these plans.

RESIGNATION OF ADVISORY COUNCIL PRESIDENT

Mr. Shymko: How does the Premier explain his government's shabby and demeaning treatment of Stan Frolick, president of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, and the insulting attitude shown to all council members as well as 39 per cent of the population of Ontario by his refusal and the refusal of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) to inform us, by way of a statement in this House, of his resignation, which the minister has known of since December 1? If he refuses to make such a statement, will he at least table the letter of resignation in this House? Why this coverup?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend opposite, Ivan the Terrible, sees conspiracies everywhere. That is not the case.

He is right. I think his letter of resignation came to my attention yesterday or the day before, and I dictated a response to him thanking him for his service to the people of Ontario. The member would like to get copies of all our correspondence, I gather, but I think it is privileged. I do not have the right to release correspondence to him that is sent to me.

Mr. Shymko: It seems like "Thank you for your services, and good riddance."

Interjections.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary and I have been interrupted.

Mr. Speaker: I would be most happy if you would place it.

14:40

Mr. Shymko: Can the Premier explain the words of Mr. Frolick, who said he resigned because the council has steadfastly offered resistance to being used as a partisan political football and to any attempts to exploit the council for partisan gain? Is this the reason the Premier does not want to table the letter? Is this the reason there is no statement in this House?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member asked me to table the letter. Why does he not table the letter? He has it, I presume.

Mr. Shymko: I have not received any letter, and the Premier alleges that I have. It is a confidential letter, and I have not received a copy of it. It is an insult. The Premier is misleading the House by saying I have received a copy of the letter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member take his seat?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable member take his seat?

Mr. Mancini: Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member withdraw the word "misleading," with which he accused the Premier just a moment ago? Will he, yes or no?

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I have not received a copy of the letter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the member, will he withdraw it, yes or no?

Mr. Shymko: I will withdraw any insinuation --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said yes or no.

Mr. Shymko: I have not received a copy of the letter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: Yes, I withdraw my statement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Harris: The member asked a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that.

Mr. Harris: We have not had the answer. We had the yelling and the bellyaching of all the clowns over here interrupting.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: The question was placed, and I would like --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I will once again wait until the members want to continue with the question period. I will now ask for a new question from the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke).

Mr. Harris: He did not answer the question.

Mr. Shymko: He has not answered mine. I have received no answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) to read the standing orders. It is up to the Speaker to decide what questions are asked or whatever.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear: Are you ruling his supplementary out of order? Is that why you do not want the Premier to answer?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for his question. I would like to remind the members that, according to the standing orders --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am not ruling questions in or out of order. I am trying to keep order within the question period and to make certain that as many members as possible may ask questions. Therefore, I am going to ask the member for Windsor-Riverside to put his question.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Is he aware that as of November 30, 1986, there have been 86 patients reimbursed by the Ontario health insurance plan as a result of doctors extra billing, and there are another 138 people who have requested forms from the Ministry of Health because they think they have been extra billed, yet at this point is it still the fact that the Ministry of Health has not moved to collect one red cent from doctors in this province who have extra billed?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am aware of those statistics. I understand they were provided as a result of questions raised in estimates. It is the case that we have not yet recovered money from any of the physicians.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What is the policy of the government? Is the minister not aware that because he has taken no action to force doctors to meet the terms of Bill 94, doctors such as Dr. Steven Richie in Brantford send out letters saying they intend to continue to extra bill? Obstetricians such as Dr. Elliott Lyons at Mount Sinai Hospital continue to charge $500 extra. Dr. Engle charges $200 extra. Dr. Jong at the Credit Valley Hospital charges $200 extra. The Bay Centre for Birth Control reports that almost two thirds of the doctors to whom it refers patients for therapeutic abortions charge administrative fees and that the fees range from $25 to $175.

Is the minister not aware that the message his government is sending to the doctors of this province is that they can extra bill and get away with it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is not the message being sent to the doctors of this province. In fact, we have been dealing first and foremost with the complaints as they have been brought to our attention by the patients. We are making the system work for the patients, which I think is the highest of priorities for all of us.

I checked into the one letter that was read in estimates Monday by the honourable gentleman. It was Dr. Richie's letter, if I am not mistaken. We had not received a copy of that, but I asked our staff to get a copy and pursue the question raised by the member in estimates on that day. I may have the wrong day in estimates, by the way. We are very interested in looking at those complaints so we can deal with the needs of the patients first and foremost. We have not made decisions not to pursue doctors. In fact, the legislation has the mechanisms we can follow, and we will pursue in that manner those situations where those abuses have to be straightened out.

ACCESS TO ABORTION

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In September, his colleague the minister responsible for women's issues, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), indicated that in November this government would have solved the problem of accessibility to abortions for women across this province and specifically mooted the possibility that Women's College Hospital would be made a special centre for abortion procedures for out-of-town women unable to secure therapeutic abortions in their communities. We are now well into December. What steps has the minister taken to ensure accessibility to abortions across this province to women?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The report on the analysis of access to that procedure is ongoing. In fact, I hope to receive some indication in the near future of whether the terms of reference of the study have been completed. We have not yet come up with any resolution that approaches the scenario the member just put forward, but we are actively considering the possibilities that exist for ensuring access in the province.

Mr. Andrewes: The problem of women accessing abortion services, particularly women in northern Ontario, is not a new one for the minister. The law is therefore an inequitable law; it cannot be applied fairly across the province. Given the fact that the minister and other members of this government have on many occasions promised better access to abortion services in the province, when can we expect this announcement?

Hon. Mr. Elston: If the honourable gentleman believes there is an inequitable law which has been passed by the federal authorities, he might well address his concerns to his colleagues in Ottawa to make that law much more equitable, if that is his concern.

We do have considerable concern about providing services to people in the north, and we have demonstrated our concern in many ways, including the initiation of travel grants for medically necessary treatments. Also, as I indicated to the member's colleague, the previous questioner, we are in the process of looking at the questions of access around the province, not in just one area.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question to the Minister of Labour, the swamp man. The Provincial Auditor's report indicated his ministry is totally disorganized and not capable of protecting workers. Let me ask the minister a question about designated substances.

Dr. Irving Selikoff has written a report that mechanics who do brake work replacement suffer from lung abnormalities, and the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States has put out a paper regarding asbestos disease among brake mechanics. Since the minister's new asbestos regulation has been in effect since March, can he indicate in how many garages there has been an asbestos assessment and in how many garages there is an asbestos control program to protect workers from getting mesothelioma?

14:50

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will try to get that information to the honourable member in the next day or two. The member will not be surprised if I tell him I do not know how many garages we have inspected, how many garages have had assessments done or how many garages have asbestos control programs. The member asks an important question, and I will see that he gets a response.

Mr. Mantel: Would the minister like to hazard a guess?

With respect to asbestos, since 25 former Bendix workers have cancer and since only two have received benefits, with one under appeal, can the minister tell me tomorrow -- or maybe next week, because there are 12 answers I do not have from him now to questions I raised in the Legislature -- why 22 claims have been denied and why the Minister of Labour is not funding anything or anyone to assist in locating the more than 2,000 workers who work at Bendix to try to find out if they are suffering from mesothelioma as a result of working for Bendix for more than a year?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: In an interview I gave a couple of weeks ago for a program which I think was aired earlier this week, I indicated that we are prepared to do an additional study to see what basis might be established for the granting of compensation claims.

The honourable gentleman is correct when he says that there have been 25 claims and only two have been accepted. It may well be that more ought to be; it may well be that some are related to the exposure that workers suffered in the former Bendix plants in Windsor. That has to be established on some scientific basis, and we are prepared to move ahead with that.

UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT OF GRAVEL PIT

Mr. Ferraro: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Interjections.

Mr. Ferraro: No, this is not a lob, honest. The minister does not even know I am going to ask this question. It pertains to the University of Guelph and a recent enterprise it has undertaken to develop an aggregate pit in the township of Puslinch, along with a private consortium.

Specifically, has the minister had any correspondence on this issue? Second, has he taken a position on whether the university, along with private enterprise, should be developing a gravel extraction site in any riding?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I hoped the member for Wellington South was going to ask me a question about another institution, but as long as he has brought up the question, we should deal with it.

Mr. McClellan: He read the wrong question. Is that what you are saying?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: No, he did not. He was concerned about it and he raised the issue in this House; that is what this place is for.

Mr. Speaker: Interjections and responses to interjections are out of order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not going to respond to his interjections any more. Besides, they are irrelevant.

I have received correspondence from residents of the township. In my responses to the correspondence, I said that the ministry is not taking a position. We feel there are procedures to deal with their concerns about use of the acreage as a gravel pit and that those procedures should be pursued.

Mr. Ferraro: I can understand the Tories hooting and hollering, but at least Pierre Berton would listen to the question. I cannot understand them.

Because my question deals with aggregate policy, which comes under the auspices of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), I would like to ask the same question of him, if I may.

Interjections.

Mr. Ferraro: May I do that?

Mr. Martel: No, no; get out of here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There have been many occasions in this House when members have asked questions and have been given the opportunity to ask a supplementary that must flow directly out of the response of the minister who answered.

Any response from the Minister of Colleges and Universities?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Yes, I have.

Mr. Ferraro: In his cabinet discussions, has the minister discussed this matter with any of his colleagues?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is a long-established parliamentary tradition that discussions in cabinet are not discussed outside cabinet, and we ought to maintain that tradition.

The Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Ridden) are both aware of the issue, as I am. The land that is the subject of discussion in Puslinch township was purchased with funds provided many years ago by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities for educational purposes.

Our position is that any use of that land approved by the various ministries that would have to approve the use, and the revenue garnered from that use should be for educational purposes approved by my ministry. We are holding to that position.

Mr. Runciman: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, but I want to raise a point of order as well. It is something you should take under consideration. As a member of the official opposition, I am expressing a personal concern about the abuse of question period by members of the government.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I remember when you used to ask them in your own party. You did the same thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Runciman: This never took place in the past, and I think it is something you should take under consideration, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mancini: Thirty seconds off the clock.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: You personally did the same thing. Yes, you did.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Runciman: That is garbage.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the member for Leeds wants to ask a question. Do you wish to ask a question?

Mr. Runciman: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Health, if he can be broken apart from his good buddies.

Mr. Ferraro: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The record has to be clarified. The member said it was garbage I was talking about. It was aggregates; it is gravel. He obviously cannot tell the difference.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In the township of Elizabethtown in my riding, residents surrounding the McDougall waste disposal site are required to filter their drinking water because of ground water contamination resulting from toxic chemical seepage. Virtually all the residents have suffered from cysts, rashes and assorted ailments; yet, despite recommendations of the Ministry of Environment, the local health unit has declined to undertake a health study.

Is the minister aware of this situation and is he prepared to intervene to ensure such a study is carried out?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not aware the health unit has declined, but I will take a look at the details of the case. We do not usually direct local health units to do things. They have very good reasons to make those decisions. I will look into the matter, because I am not aware of the reasons behind the decision, and I will report to the member.

Mr. Runciman: That is an interesting response. The Provincial Auditor recently pointed out weaknesses in the public health branch of the Ministry of Health. The minister is probably going to disagree, but would he consider agreeing that this case is yet another example of the ministry's failure to monitor health agencies adequately to ensure public health services are being carried out? Can he assure the House that staffing levels will be beefed up to address the auditor's concerns, despite his deputy minister's reluctance to do so?

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is certainly a different issue from the one at hand. The decisions that are being made at the local level by people who are trained in these matters -- the medical officer of health and others -- are not related to the question on which the auditor was reporting. Those two items are not connected. The honourable gentleman has just indicated he does not have confidence in the decision of the medical officer of health or of the board of health not to do the study. I told the honourable gentleman I will look into the decision that was made there to see what the basis of the decision was and report back to him.

The question about the auditor's report is separate. I think the honourable gentleman would accept that.

15:00

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Grande: My question is of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Wheelchair-bound people in Metropolitan Toronto who want to spend Christmas Day with their families outside Metro, namely, in Brampton, have to pay more than he and I have to pay for a round trip to Florida if we book well in advance.

Is the Minister of Transportation and Communications aware that for him and me a return trip to Brampton by public transportation on Christmas Day would cost $8? If we went by taxi, it would cost us $60 to $70. For a wheelchair-bound person, the cost is the phenomenal sum of $177.50, the cheapest rate, to $192. What is the minister going to do to alleviate this unfair cost for the many disabled people who rely on special transit to be with their families on Christmas Day?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: It is a question my staff and I take quite seriously, and we are reviewing it very carefully. We have great respect for and co-operation with the people afflicted as the member has suggested.

We are working directly with the leaders of those groups. We recognize the problem within the Metropolitan Toronto boundaries with Wheel-Trans, etc. We are very aware of it and we are working with the regions through a task force we appointed a while ago, which will be responding to us in the near future, to address the kinds of questions and real concerns we inherited.

Mr. Grande: What advice does the minister have for Evelyn Snyder, a wheelchair-bound person who wants to be with her parents in Brampton on Christmas Day? She cannot afford the cost of $192 to get to Brampton. What plans does the minister have to expand Wheel-Trans to communities outside Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: As the member is well aware, Wheel-Trans is limited to within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto. As I attempted to explain in my previous answer, we recognize that there are a lot of transportation needs within the regions surrounding Metropolitan Toronto and we are addressing them.

There may be organizations that can assist in the short term the case you bring to our attention. I would offer to help to assist you with that individual case. We have had similar things in the east end of Metro, where I am. There are some agencies and others that are making that kind of service available. Perhaps with some interfacing, we may be of some immediate short-term assistance.

I can assure the member and the House that we have our staff and others from the groups he is referring to, with the help of my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Ruprecht), working very hard on trying to address and find the funding to address the issues he raises.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister has told us that the government is continuing to meet with new home builders but that no final decision on measures to protect new home buyers has been completed. We learned this morning, upon checking with John Carbone, who is the president of the Toronto Home Builders' Association, that the meetings were completed several days ago and there are no further plans whatsoever for meetings. He wondered what I was talking about with respect to continuing meetings.

Will the minister tell us why he is stalling on this issue and when we may hear something positive by way of assistance to new home buyers?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know that the officials in my ministry and the industry have been meeting, and the industry has made proposals about how it hopes to address this problem. It is their decision when they will announce it. They informed me they expect to announce it -- and this was three or four days ago -- within a week to 10 days. That now has been shortened, and I expect they will be making the announcement some time in the coming week.

Mr. O'Connor: Perhaps the minister should check with his officials to determine this: in fact, the meetings have not been carried on in the past few days and nothing is happening.

Some nine months ago I proposed to the minister a five-point legislative program to assist new home buyers, and he acknowledged it by way of an encouraging letter; I might put it that way. The situation has now got completely out of control with many more buyers having their contracts cancelled and with it being obvious that the industry cannot police and legislate itself. Will the minister consider some simple legislative process to assist these buyers, such as registration of lots before they are allowed to be sold, as a number one point?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There may be a bit of confusion. When I talked about meeting with the industry in the past few days, it was not to discuss the program further. The member is right. Those discussions have finished. The meeting in the past few days was to discuss the specific problem in Bolton. I should tell the members of the House that I have been informed just as we have been sitting here today that the registrar of the new home warranty program is proposing to revoke the registration of the builder in the Georgian homes situation. That is taking place.

However, the issue that we are talking about, the proposals that I think will solve most of the problems, is something that is industry-driven. They have made the proposal. They have done it in consultation with people in my ministry. They have asked that they be given the opportunity to announce it, and I expect that will happen in the next few days.

MINISTRY RELOCATION

Mr. Morin-Strom: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I have a question for the acting Minister of Government Services about the jobs promised to Sault Ste. Marie. It is about the need to relocate those jobs and, in particular, the need for a facility that has to be constructed in the Sault to house the employees taking the 360 jobs that have been promised to the Sault.

The executive co-ordinator of the northern Ontario relocation program has told me that the site selection decision is imminent. However, construction may not start until the second half of 1987. With a construction period estimated at 18 to 24 months, the 360 jobs will not be coming to Saint Ste. Marie until some time in 1989.

Can the minister tell us his timetable for this important initiative? Will he intervene with the government bureaucracy to see that this important initiative is moved up and that we will see those jobs as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I appreciate the honourable member's question. I know of his interest in and concern about the project. I simply indicate, as the Premier did when he was in Sault Ste. Marie not many weeks ago, that this is a very significant project. Speaking to this government's commitment to northern Ontario, as the Premier said, we are determined to move forward as quickly as we possibly can. I expect that will be done.

The member is quite right. At the Ministry of Government Services right now, we are reviewing the various sites that are to be considered. I can assure the member we will move forward in that consideration at the greatest possible speed. We are very anxious to move those jobs to Sault Ste. Marie at the earliest opportunity and in the best possible way.

Mr. Morin-Strom: There was considerable flowery language there and a commendation for themselves, but there was no indication at all when the jobs are coming, when construction is going to start and what the timetable is for the project. We are awaiting the decision. We know the 1,500 jobs that are going to be lost at Algoma Steel will be lost by the middle of 1987. The minister is indicating to us that we may not see the --

Mr. Speaker: The member has already asked three supplementary questions.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I said earlier and I repeat for the member and for anyone else who might be interested that, as the Premier has said, this is a priority for this government and we intend to move as quickly as we possibly can. I expect to be making the decision about site selection in the very near future. Once that is done, we will proceed as quickly and as efficiently as we can, with due regard to the interests of the Sault Ste. Marie community and the various clients that we at the Ministry of Government Services obviously want to serve.

15:10

MERCHANTS' USE OF FIREARMS

Mr. Mancini: My question is to the acting Solicitor General. Today in the morning newspapers it was reported that a newly appointed commissioner on the Metropolitan Toronto police commission -- appointed by Metro council, I may add -- has stated he feels it is in the best interests of the community that some merchants should arm themselves in areas of high crime.

Because of the several tragic circumstances that have taken place across Canada, two in Quebec and one in Alberta, where merchants have shot and killed intruders, I ask the acting Solicitor General whether he could --

Mr. Speaker: With respect, we have gone 60 seconds, and I thought perhaps you had concluded your question. Please ask your question quickly.

Mr. Mancini: I ask the acting Solicitor General whether he can offer his views on behalf of the government of Ontario on this very important matter.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for the question. The government does not accept the kind of statement that was made by the commissioner in Metropolitan Toronto.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Speaker: Is the member for Sarnia rising on a point of privilege or a point or order?

Mr. Brandt: It is a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Personal privilege?

Mr. Brandt: That is right, and you do not know what it is until I tell you.

Mr. Speaker: No. Under what standing order?

Mr. Brandt: The point of personal privilege is that the past two or three minutes of question period have been denied the members of the opposition, to whom they have always historically and traditionally been given in this House. That was a ludicrous question, set up for no other purpose than to kill the clock. You know it, and we know it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that the members have wasted all the final time remaining, time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Under the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, which all members are familiar with, are you going to reaffirm the rights of all members of this House, who are supposed to be equal and who do have the right under the standing orders to pose questions to any ministers, except their own, when they wish to do so?

Mr. Sterling: Concerning this debate on the point of order, standing order 29(b) does read that parties shall have questions in order by rotation. It is important in dealing with this matter to note that this standing order is in direct contravention of my rights and privileges as a member of this Legislature. I want to explain exactly why. It is important that you know why, Mr. Speaker.

There are approximately 100 private members sitting in this House. There are 50 in this party, 25 in the New Democratic Party and 27 in the Liberal Party. On behalf of my constituents in Carleton-Grenville, I have only half the chance of asking a question each day in this Legislature as a private member from the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party, and therefore --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. And therefore?

Mr. Sterling: Therefore, my privileges as a member are being abrogated by this standing order. I ask you to refer this to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to have this whole matter looked into so equity can be given to the members of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Wildman: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: I understand the frustration of the members of the official opposition, and I certainly understand the frustration of their constituents. I think all of us here would sympathize with the constituents of the members of the Conservative Party. I hope you will affirm --

Mr. Runciman: You do not care; you are still in bed with those guys. Why not act like a member of the opposition? You want to be over there; walk right over. You are a phoney.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the Speaker's duty to make certain that all members have an opportunity to express their views, and I hope the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) will assist the Speaker in allowing the member for Algoma to complete his comments on that point of order.

Mr. Wildman: I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope you, as the officer of the Legislative Assembly who is responsible for protecting the rights of all members of the House, will affirm that all private members, no matter what their political affiliation, have the right to raise questions in this House.

However, I also hope you will make it clear to all members of the House that it is indeed the responsibility of the government during the question period to answer questions that are posed in a serious way on the important issues of the day. It would be unfortunate if some members of one party in particular were to use the time in the question period to ensure that opposition questions were not raised.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would be willing to make a ruling on that. However, I want to be fair to all. If members want to listen to the member for York Centre, the member has the floor.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) had three minutes, in which time he was able to ask his question, and you did not allow the acting Solicitor General (Mr. Scott) to have the opportunity to respond to that question. If he does not have a chance to do it now, tomorrow we are going to see the member for Essex South stand up again and take more time of the House. Why not extend the time now so we can at least get him put away for today?

Mr. Cordiano: I would like to speak to that same point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oh well, feel free.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

15:20

Mr. Cordiano: We can all understand the frustrations of members of the opposition; they want all the time to themselves. However, the people of my constituency want to hear from this party, and if I ask a question they have --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I could not hear whether you were on the point of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please allow the member for Downsview to continue.

Mr. Cordiano: With all due respect, the questions asked by back-benchers of the government party have a legitimate place in this House. We have a point of view, and if we want to get that across, we can do that. That is the right in this House. Our privileges would be undermined, and I do not think members of the opposition would have it that way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Dufferin-Simcoe, on the same point, I hope.

Mr. McCague: I listened as carefully as one could to the question asked by the member for Essex South. After a one-and-a-half-minute preamble, he asked the acting Solicitor General if he could express his opinion on the subject. I contend that is a misuse of question period, because if the acting Solicitor General had something to say on the subject, such as expressing his views, he should have done it as a government statement and not used up question time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I want to be as fair and as objective on this question as possible in the circumstances. I would like to point out that, as we got to the end of question period, the member for Essex South took up the last few moments by asking a question of a minister he could lean right over to, who was almost physically in contact with him; that is how close they were.

Second, what is so frustrating for my colleagues and the members on this side of the House is that we have tabled with this government a series of questions that are in Orders and Notices, and he even refused to answer those questions. He will not answer questions in the House, and he will not answer questions in Orders and Notices.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to be recognized, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think I recognized the member once.

Mr. Cousens: I am standing to be recognized again.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I ask to be recognized.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the member for York Centre realizes that any member can be recognized once on a subject. Have I recognized him once before on this point of order?

Mr. Cousens: Yes, but I am asking for an answer to the question I raised.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member resume his seat?

I have listened with great interest to the members on this point of order --

Mrs. Marland: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order regarding the question of the member for Essex South to the member for St. David (Mr. Scott): As I recall his precise words, he was asking the opinion of the Attorney General. Is it within your purview, Mr. Speaker, to tell me whether questions ask for an opinion or for an answer?

Mr. Speaker: There have been many questions asked of the Speaker. I will be glad to make a lengthy response. I can probably refer to the question of the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) at a future time.

On the main thrust of the point raised by many members, I must remind all members that it is this House that sets the standing orders. You are the people, and I am included, who accepted the rules set out by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. It is up to me as Speaker to make certain those rules are upheld.

There seemed to be some concern by the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) that the time was unfair for some of the members. Again, I must remind you the standing orders are very clear that the Speaker will recognize all members on a rotation basis. It is in the recommendations set out by the standing orders. That is what I am doing. Therefore, I can only say that I have tried to uphold the standing orders to be fair for all members.

Mr. Mitchell: I rose on this point of order attempting to draw your attention --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry.

Mr. Mitchell: I feel it must be said --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, it is a very important point. However, the original point and the point continued by the member for Carleton-Grenville was that fairness should be shown. I have ruled that fairness has been shown according to the standing orders set out by the committee. If the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) has another point of order, fine.

Mr. Mitchell: It is on the same point of order. Normally, I am a pretty quiet individual.

Mr. Speaker: I agree.

Mr. Mitchell: However, I should point out, and you as Speaker should recognize, that the question with which the member for Essex South took up all the time was a question that had been previously asked.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will be glad to send the honourable members the exact time it took for all the questions and responses, if they so desire.

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I was most interested in your comment that your job is to protect and to hear all members of the Legislature in fairness.

I want to point out that today is an anniversary for the government, because 365 days ago I put a question in Orders and Notices, question 141. I want to celebrate that event, because it has not been answered yet. I would like to read that question into the record, if possible. I point this out for the fourth time and urge you to use your office to get an answer to this very simple question.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a point of order. Since you have drawn that to the attention of the Speaker, he will make certain the government House leader is aware of it.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I appreciate your ruling. I think you have ruled correctly according to the standing orders. I would like to say that those standing orders --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, you are on the same point. You are referring to my ruling.

Mr. Sterling: I want to indicate to you that there is a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, you are referring to the ruling I made on the point of order. If you are on another point of order, fine.

15:30

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: On what standing order?

Mr. Sterling: On standing order 29(b), which deals with the right of a member to ask questions. That rule was founded upon the assumption by members of the opposition that the normal course of events in the Legislature would be that the government private members would ask questions --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the member is referring to the same matter we have dealt with. I am sorry.

Mr. Cousens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: On what standing order?

Mr. Cousens: It has to do with standing order 29. My question has to do with future question periods. If a member is asking a question before question period expires and if the question has been completed, will it be your policy, Mr. Speaker, that the answer be given to that question, even if the time for the answer is beyond the hour allotted?

Mr. Martel: That has always been the case. Don't be silly.

Mr. Cousens: That is what happened today. Today a person asked a question and we did not get the answer after question period. Will that be your new policy, Mr. Speaker, or is that the policy of this House?

Mr. Martel: Would you get somebody to teach them the rules?

Mr. Speaker: I am not here to debate it. The simple rule is, as it has been in the past, that if the question is asked --

Mr. Cousens: The answer was not given.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable members do not want to know the rule.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Newman: I have a petition from Dr. Alan J. Bell, doctor of chiropractic and naturopathy from the city of Windsor. It is signed by 30 people, who visited my office in the constituency of Windsor-Walkerville. It reads:

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

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

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

Ms. Gigantes: In the absence of the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), I present the following petition:

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

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

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

It is signed by 60 residents of the riding of Windsor-Riverside.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Rowe: I have a petition for the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor from the Trinity Anglican Church in Barrie. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a holy day in order that all people may grow in holiness. For this they need regular time for recreation together."

It is signed by some 200 members.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RÈGLEMENTS ET DES PROJETS DE LOI D'INTÊRÉT PRIVÉ

M. Poirier du Comité permanent des règlements et des projets de loi d'intérêt privé présente le rapport suivant et propose son adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of London.

La motion est adoptée.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the following report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Breaugh: This is the response from the Legislative Assembly committee on the Aird report on conflict-of-interest matters. As members know, only an unfeeling, insensitive, stupid, arrogant government would proceed with legislation prior to the acceptance of a report from a committee that had been charged with looking at conflict of interest. Surely that would never happen in this assembly.

The report attempts to put to the assembly the general principles that the members of the committee found necessary for good conflict-of-interest legislation. It is not a unanimous report, and I want to make that clear. There is a dissenting opinion and, to be fair about it, several members of the committee are unhappy with the notion that conflict-of-interest provisions should apply to all members; however, that is one of our recommendations.

It would be worth while now for the assembly itself to have a scheduled debate on this matter, certainly if the conflict-of-interest guidelines are to be done by law and apply to all members. I put forward to members, before we even begin the debate, that an important criterion will be that the guidelines and legislation are acceptable to virtually all members of the assembly; certainly, the concept has to be in place.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on government agencies be authorized to meet today following routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT

Mrs. Grier moved first reading of Bill 172, An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario.

Mrs. Grier: The purpose of this bill is to extend environmental rights to citizens in Ontario. The bill of rights would give citizens the right to go to court to protect the environment where damage is being done; would ensure that decisions are not made or approvals granted without notifying the community or without people having the right to a public hearing; would guarantee people access to information relating to environmental issues such as the toxicity of chemicals; would set up funding for interveners where there is a hearing; and would protect workers who refuse to pollute from reprisals by their employers.

I am glad that the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) is in the chamber as I introduce this bill because I confess that the bill has a somewhat mixed parentage. An environmental bill of rights was introduced by my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) in 1980. The Minister of Health will find, as I am sure he will do shortly when he reads the bill of rights I have introduced today, that it also bears a very close resemblance to the bill he introduced in April 1982.

Given that support from the government side of the House, I have total assurance that this bill will find favour and be passed very shortly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

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

15:40

Hon. Mr. Elston: May I ask permission to be seated at the place in front of the table?

Mr. Chairman: Do we have unanimous consent for Mr. Elston to be seated in the front row, in front of the table?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any amendments, comments or questions? To what section?

On section 33:

Ms. Gigantes: I hope I am moving in order here. I believe the amendment I should be placing at this time is to section 33.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that section 33 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(37a) Subsection 33d(2) of the said act, as enacted by the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, chapter 262, section 67, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) Subject to subsections 29(6) and (7), where a party to a proceeding is 16 years of age or older and mentally competent, the party or the counsel or agent representing the party, or both, is entitled to examine and copy any clinical record prepared in respect of the patient.

"(3) Subject to subsections 29(6) and (7), where a party to a proceeding is under the age of 16 years or is not mentally competent, the counsel or agent representing the party is entitled to examine and to copy any clinical record prepared in respect of the patient.

"(4) Nothing in subsection (3) prevents the counsel or agent representing a party described in subsection (3) from disclosing a clinical record to that party."

Ms. Gigantes: The import of this amendment is to make a provision that the patient who is under 16 years or is not mentally competent will have at least some means of access to his or her own clinical record for purposes of a review board or a court hearing. We have established already, in a previous amendment to Bill 7, that the competent patient who is over 16 years has such a right. What is provided in subsections 3 and 4 in the amendment I have put forward here is a right which is not unrestricted but which provides access for a patient who is under 16 and/or not mentally competent.

It provides that the agent or the lawyer representing the party should have access to the clinical record. It says specifically that the counsel or agent may share the contents of that record with the patient. It seems both normal and necessary that a person who is involved in a hearing on his or her status in a psychiatric institution in Ontario should be able to have some access to the clinical records which will be put in evidence at that hearing. This motion attempts to provide that access.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I rise to indicate that we are in favour of this amendment and to thank the critics of the other two parties for consulting with us in cleaning up the wording. We will support the amendment.

Mr. O'Connor: Our party is in favour of the amendment also. We have discussed it among the parties and we are agreeable to the wording, although subsection 4 seems somewhat redundant in that it seems to me, as a lawyer, an obligation or a duty of counsel or agent representing a party to disclose and discuss with that party any information or documents he or she has received on behalf of his or her client. However, the addition of subsection 4 does not in any way detract from the other sections, so we are content that it stay there.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that section 33 of the bill, as reprinted by the Attorney General, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"51(a) Clause 35(4)(a) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(a) an involuntary patient is not mentally competent, and there is no relative of the patient from whom consent may be requested to the provision of a specific psychiatric treatment or a specific course of psychiatric treatment of the patient; and...."

Ms. Gigantes: The purpose of this amendment -- and I hope it is one which all parties will support during our discussions today -- is to provide that a competent patient shall have an absolute right to decide whether or not a certain course of treatment shall be carried out. We are talking about a competent, involuntary patient. It seems to me that when we talk of a person of that status, we are discussing a question that has the highest ramifications in terms of its implications for human rights.

While the clause that is before us as an amendment is a rather complex clause, it has the effect of ensuring that competent patients have the right to refuse treatment. Part of the generation of concern on this issue that has gone on over the years has been the consideration of electroshock therapy. It has become enough of a question, in terms of civil liberties in this province, that we have had to go through a long, complex discussion of how we should be handling the rights of a competent, involuntary psychiatric patient.

We have had a very thorough report by a high-powered review committee, the Electroconvulsive Therapy Review Committee. That committee, in speaking to the issue of electroconvulsive therapy, spoke not only about that particular therapy but about any therapy. It said in part, "There must be established a process for the determination of competency in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner -- " we have that now, but in a questionable manner -- "and that unless an individual is determined by this process to be incompetent to make treatments decisions, such individual should have the absolute right to consent or refuse treatment and this decision should not be subject to review. The committee recommends that the Mental Health Act be amended accordingly."

That is the purpose of the amendment before us. When we approve this amendment, as I hope we will today, we will not be breaking new ground in terms of the rights of psychiatric patients in Canada. Nova Scotia has had such a procedure, a safeguard for competent patients and their right to refuse treatment, in place for years. As far as one can ascertain, the treatment of psychiatric patients in Nova Scotia is no less powerful or good because of that different procedure. I hope we will have support from all sides of the House for this step.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We will not be supporting this amendment. The suggestion of the honourable member that other areas have taken steps to deal with legislation similar to this is noted, but I must indicate that the latest draft of the Uniform Mental Health Act, which is under ongoing development, actually has adopted the position which is currently before the House in the unamended fashion. That is done by deliberation of people interested in this topic from right across Canada. I have to indicate to the honourable members that from our standpoint we would not want to deviate from that.

I am likewise concerned that the amendment itself would in many ways reduce the institutions to a role of being places of incarceration, actually, for patients who have already been committed to those facilities for the purpose of treatment being delivered. I would not want to see the people who are responsible for delivery of treatment prevented from carrying out the function they have been directed to perform. Thus, from our standpoint, we are not willing to support this amendment at this time.

15:50

Ms. Gigantes: We have heard this kind of comment from the minister and from ministry spokespeople before. We can wait for ever to make progress in this area. There is no excuse at this stage for Ontario to proceed with a really retrograde kind of process that deprives competent patients of the right to refuse treatment. It is absolutely intolerable in the light of the equality rights section of the charter and, indeed, of the charter itself. What could be more fundamental to human rights than the right as a competent person, whether a voluntary or an involuntary patient, to decide whether to undergo a certain course of treatment?

The minister raises the spectre of competent involuntary patients who will be left with no treatment. This is a bogyman that has been raised by the people who are in the profession of treating psychiatric patients. I think the minister would do well to remember that schoolteachers, who are told to take a class of 30 pupils and deal with the willing and the unwilling and to find the ways to provide education to the willing students and the unwilling, have managed through decades of experience and care to communicate with their students so that a course of education is voluntarily undertaken and to provide alternative methods and programs for students, so that a course of education is voluntarily undertaken.

There is nothing in the literature -- and there is much literature on this subject -- to indicate that there is any better prognosis for involuntary patients who are competent and who are forced to take treatment than for involuntary patients who are allowed to make a choice about whether they take treatment. The minister's argument loses effect more each day. He knows perfectly well that the whole approach that is being undertaken in the work of the Advisory Committee on Substitute Decision-Making for Mentally Incapable Persons is in the direction of the amendment before us, and there is no reason for us to wait on this very important amendment.

Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask your indulgence and ask that this matter be delayed or stood down very briefly. There are other members of our party who wish to make some comment on it, who cannot be here immediately. I wonder whether it would be possible to go on to another matter and come back to this within a brief period of time, perhaps 15 or 20 minutes.

Mr. Chairman: Only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

Mr. McClellan: We had an understanding that we could stand it down for 15 minutes or so and continue.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Nobody has asked me. Nobody even asked or suggested that this was going to take place.

Mr. McClellan: I am sorry. I said I had an understanding that this was being requested, only because I happen to have the advantage of sitting beside my honourable colleague here. I am simply saying I have no objection to standing this down for a few minutes. It is normal procedure in committee of the whole House to stand sections down and come back to them. I have no objection.

Mr. Chairman: Is there unanimous consent to stand this matter down for 15 minutes?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we go on?

Mr. Reville: I have two connected amendments.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Reville moves that section 33 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(17a) Section 23 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

"(3) The officer in charge of a psychiatric facility shall not transfer a patient to the Oak Ridge division of the mental health centre at Penetanguishene or to any other facility or part of a facility that is designated in the regulations as a maximum security area.

"(4) Subsection (3) does not apply in respect of a patient who pursuant to the Criminal Code (Canada) is,

(a) remanded to custody for observation; or

(b) detained under the authority of a warrant of the Lieutenant Governor."

Mr. Reville: This amendment deals with a subject that was addressed in the committee and I understand was debated somewhat extensively. It has to do with the transfer of a patient from a provincial psychiatric hospital to the maximum security facility known as Oak Ridge. As a companion amendment, I provide an amendment to the regulation section of the Mental Health Act that allows the Lieutenant Governor to designate psychiatric facilities as maximum security.

The point of this amendment is to prevent the transfer to Oak Ridge of a person who is civilly committed. It is a very simple amendment. It deals directly with what has been identified as a problem. The Oak Ridge facility currently serves, and I use that verb in quotes, those who are on Lieutenant Governor's warrants. That is because they have been found not guilty by reason of insanity or they have been found unfit to stand trial. Also among the census of that hospital are those who are there on a warrant of remand. They are dealt with in a forensic unit.

A large number of the census at Oak Ridge are civilly committed patients from other parts of the psychiatric establishment in Ontario. They are sent there because, for various reasons, the sending hospital has decided it no longer wants to deal with a patient. The Hucker report identifies the mixing of civilly committed patients and those who are there because of alleged criminal behaviour as a problem.

Having visited the Oak Ridge facility, I can well understand why that would be a problem. In my view, Oak Ridge is nothing more than a set of connected cages in which it is inappropriate to keep anyone, whether they be on a Lieutenant Governor's warrant or not. It strikes me that a civilly committed person who has never been accused of an offence under the Criminal Code should never under any circumstances suffer the fate of being sent to Oak Ridge.

This amendment would go a long way to dealing with the enormous problems experienced at Oak Ridge by reducing the potential census by about one half. It is more appropriate for psychiatric facilities to deal with problems in a decentralized way. One of the outcomes for people who are sent to Oak Ridge is that they stay a very long time in a very untherapeutic atmosphere. Most of the committee that dealt with the Hucker report, which was tabled by the minister in December 1985, took the view that patients who were civilly committed and faced no criminal charges should be held in separate facilities from those who have been involved with the law.

That is what this amendment will do. It is important that this amendment receive support. In the event it does not, it will not be necessary for me to move my second amendment because it is complementary.

16:00

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to participate in the debate?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, I do wish to participate. As I understand it, the honourable gentleman is quite correct. Although I was not in the committee at the time of the debate, as I understand it, a similar proposal was made and defeated in the committee. I understand there are some people who, although not charged with a crime or convicted of a crime, are civilly committed from another facility because they are considered very dangerous and may have been in another facility that was not able to deal with their case in any way.

If someone is assigned to Oak Ridge now, a full report has to be done to the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Corder, in the Ministry of Health, mental health branch, indicating why the transfer had to be made and justifying the fact that the transfer was made. We see this as an appropriate way to continue at the moment. I ask that this amendment again be defeated.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment to subsection 33(17a) carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Reville: I will withdraw my second amendment because there now is no need for it.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. McClellan: There is still a need for it. It is just that the Legislature does not understand the need for it.

Mr. Chairman: I was aware of what he meant. I guess we had better carry on; the 15 minutes are not up.

On section 70:

Mr. Chairman: The next amendment, I say with trepidation in being presumptuous enough to suggest it, is clause 70(1)(c).

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I understand it, there are a number of amendments to this section, including the amendment of which notice was given yesterday to be introduced by the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko). Can I suggest to the House, if it agrees, that the other amendments, though perhaps not in order, be dealt with fast and his be dealt with last.

Mr. Harris: What is your suggestion, that you are going to deal with all of yours first?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Yes, and then he can deal with his last.

Mr. Chairman: That is the appropriate order. His is subsection 70(6).

Hon. Mr. Scott moves that subsection 70(1) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

"(ba) Section 14.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If the House will agree, I would like permission to move at the same time the next amendment, which is connected with it. The two cannot be considered in isolation.

The intent of the two amendments, which work together, is to postpone the proclamation of one of the sections of the act to March 1, 1987. If I could move the second motion with the consent of the House, perhaps the debate on the two motions could take place at the same time.

Mr. Chairman: Is it clearer that way? Is it clearer to have the minister's discussion on the first and then on the second, or are they intertwined? Are all points relevant to both?

Hon. Mr. Scott: They are relevant to both.

Mr. Chairman: Is there unanimous consent of the House to discuss the two subsections together and then carry them one after the other?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Scott moves that section 70 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(2a) Section 14 comes into force on the first day of March, 1987."

Hon. Mr. Scott: The intent of this is to postpone the proclamation of section 14 of the bill to March 1, 1987. Section 14 concerns employment of handicapped persons at less than the minimum wage. The repeal of section 24 of the Employment Standards Act, which is what section 14 does, means that permits for the hiring of handicapped people at below the minimum wage will hereinafter be prohibited.

I am advised by the Ministry of Labour that the immediate implementation of this important and desirable reform will mean that a number of employees who are handicapped and who are now working for employers who have not been paying the minimum wage will be promptly released from employment. That is an undesirable result, although in the longer term, the intent of the Legislature that every handicapped person working in private employment should be paid the minimum wage is the right approach.

If the bill is passed and proclaimed, those permits would cease to have validity. The ministry proposes that there be, in effect, an extension to March 1, so that other programs can be put in place to assure that those employees will not lose their employment.

The natural question is why those programs cannot be put in place immediately, thereby permitting the immediate proclamation of the section. I am advised that in so far as those programs designed to close the gap between the below-minimum wage and the minimum wage for handicapped persons in those categories depends on the expenditure of government moneys, there is no legislative authority at present for that expenditure. It is on that basis that we advance this amendment. It is essentially to try to save the jobs of 100 persons who may lose their employment upon proclamation of the act.

I undertake to the Legislature that the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Labour will work diligently in the intervening period to assure that all reasonable steps are taken to reduce the impact of this important remedial law on persons who are now working in establishments that may not be prepared to pay the minimum wage.

Mr. McClellan: I want to comment briefly on this initiative that is being taken, because it is such an important one. I did some work on this issue in my capacity of social services critic for the New Democratic Party in the middle and late 1970s. I believe I did the first survey of the so-called wages that were actually being paid to physically handicapped people working in various places of so-called employment.

16:10

That survey, in either 1977 or 1978, found an average wage of 36 cents per hour. Further work discovered that there were no ministerial permits and that people were being employed on a full-time basis in places of employment without the requirement of the employer obtaining an exemption from the minimum wage laws of this province, without workers' compensation coverage and without coverage of our health and safety legislation.

Then followed a period of studious inactivity on the part of the previous government. The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Community and Social Services of the day commissioned studies. They all documented the injustice and the illegality of the situation that was being inflicted on handicapped workers in places of employment.

I am personally delighted that this situation is being abolished with the amendments to Bill 7. It is regrettable that the ministry needs additional time, I presume to make sure that money is made available to the sheltered employment agencies, to make sure that nobody has to be unemployed even for a single day.

It is regrettable that there had to be that gap in time, but we do not want to risk anybody having to be laid off as a result of the abolition of a fundamentally unjust and irrational system of employing handicapped people. The government has had since June 1986 to put the system in place.

The fact is that if we do not pass this amendment, I am given to understand handicapped people are liable to suffer. The physically handicapped workers have been waiting for more than a decade to have these injustices corrected.

I want to pay tribute in particular to the work done by the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, which has taken on this cause as its own and forced governments to respond to the injustices, to provide workers' compensation coverage and finally to recognize that physically handicapped people have the right to full protection of the Employment Standards Act of this province.

Mr. O'Connor: I have some concern about the delay proposed by the minister in achieving this very admirable goal, which has been a very long time coming for physically and mentally handicapped persons in our province.

The raising of their wages to minimum wage is the least we can do. It was a matter that was discussed thoroughly before the committee when this matter was before the standing committee on administration of justice and was passed by the committee unanimously.

What the minister is proposing now is that a delay be built into the system whereby the many thousands -- I would warrant it to be in the dozens of thousands -- of handicapped persons across this province who are employed in sheltered workshops will be deprived of the increase to minimum wage of their salaries for another three months. I suggest they have waited long enough.

The minister points out that perhaps 100 people may lose their jobs if this amendment is not passed at this time. Surely the answer to that problem is to fund them. If we are talking of only 100 people who are funded in sheltered workshops, the funding for those workshops coming from the government -- and the government is completely in charge and control of this situation -- why cannot the government simply make up the difference between what they are receiving by way of a wage and the minimum wage for the three-month interim period, if the shop does not have the funds to pay the money?

The total wage package for 100 people working 40 hours a week at minimum wage is $192,000 for those three months. They are already receiving a wage of some kind. It surely is not as low as 36 cents, as my friend has indicated. If it is half the minimum wage, by rough calculation, the makeup amount would be less than $100,000. When we understand that come March, when the problem will be resolved in any event, the ministry will be paying all the funding for these people because it funds these sheltered workshops, what is the great difficulty?

Rather than making the many thousands of handicapped persons wait for their minimum wage for the sake of 100 who may be in jeopardy, surely the more reasonable answer is to fund the 100 so that the 1,000 can start getting their just due January 1. For that reason, I have great difficulty supporting this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would join with the House leader of the New Democratic Party in saluting the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, David Baker and the executive of that organization on the work they have done in support of this amendment over many years and a number of other amendments that are found in this reform bill.

I hope it is not overly pompous to observe that the approach of the New Democratic Party is practical at least in the sense that while this great reform must take place, it would be wrong for it to take place in a way that would injure a few handicapped workers who are now employed for even a short period of time.

I can barely stomach my friend the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor), whose government was responsible for this inequity for more than 10 years and did nothing, notwithstanding that the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped was down here once a month talking about it.

That government could not do it to interfere with the private sector; it could not do it even for the handicapped. To say unctuously now --

Mr. Chairman: Order. Perhaps the Attorney General would like to -- that phrase "stomach" is insulting.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I withdraw "stomach," but the members know how I feel about it.

Mr. McClellan: Is "stomach" now an unparliamentary word? What about "hand"?

Mr. Chairman: It is insulting and likely to cause disorder.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have no intention of insulting the member for Oakville, who, after all, was not here during that 10-year period and is only in a collateral way connected with the excesses of that regime.

Mr. O'Connor: As the Attorney General has pointed out, I was not here. I am telling him the position of our party right now. We want to get on with this. Can he explain in short terms why several thousands or perhaps dozens of thousands of handicapped persons have to wait three further months for their increase in pay at the expense of the possibility of perhaps 100 of them becoming unemployed? If that is the case, why cannot his ministry, the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Community and Social Services not simply fund the difference for those 100?

It is less than $100,000. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has 400 million extra dollars he did not expect to receive this year from general revenues. Surely less than $100,000 for this very worthwhile project is warranted.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have tried to answer that question. There is no legislative authority to make the payment the honourable member requests be made. It is that problem for which we desire time to find a solution.

There is legislative authority to bill to the minimum wage in certain youth programs, but the people with whom we are concerned are not all in that category. The minister's request is that the delay in proclamation of this section be allowed not to injure those who have suffered for so long but to ensure that no more will suffer as a result of the Legislature's desire to make this important reform.

Mr. O'Connor: I am at a loss to understand the comment that there is no authority to fund it. These people are already being funded by the government. Is the Attorney General trying to tell us that if this amendment is defeated and the law comes into effect when the rest of the bill does, on January 1, there will be authority then to fund the extra amounts necessary to bring these programs up to the minimum wage standard? What if that occurs? Surely the authority is already there, the government is funding the program and all we have to do is add the money to it.

16:20

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have answered the question as best I can.

Mr. Harris: Very briefly, we understand the position the Attorney General is putting forward and that there could be a problem for a very small number of people. Our party acknowledges that there could be a problem if proclamation occurs when it will.

There are two ways to deal with it. One is to put off proclamation for a number of months and allow all those that are not being paid the minimum wage to have to bear that for a number of months. The alternative is the suggestion put forward by our party and bring it in right away. If there is a problem with 50 or 100 people, the government has billions of dollars more than it thought it would have a year ago. Surely for the sake of $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000, possibly up to $100,000, the inequity could be corrected right away.

The Attorney General wants to make it clear what his position is, and on behalf of our party I want to make it clear that we share his concern. We think there is a more equitable way to ensure that everybody gets the money on time, instead of having to wait the extra months. Our opposition is to the Attorney General's method of proceeding on this. We want it fully understood that we believe the government has other alternatives that would make everybody satisfied. Everybody would get the money immediately on proclamation.

Mr. Chairman: Do any other honourable members wish to participate in the debate on the two motions? If not, remember we are going to carry both motions.

Shall Mr. Scott's amendments adding clause 70(1)(ba) and subsection 70(2a) both carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motions agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The next amendment is to clause 70(1)(c).

Mr. Chairman: The 15 minutes is more than up.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am sorry.

Mr. McClellan: Can we revert to the item we stood down?

Mr. Chairman: Section 70 is postponed, or at least we have not reached it yet. We are reverting to section 33. Ms. Gigantes's amendment that starts out "I move that section 33" adds a new subsection 51a for identification purposes.

Ms. Gigantes: I have moved the motion, I have spoken to the motion and I hope we have enough support in this Legislature to pass the motion.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate on this section?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We stood down this amendment so the official opposition could speak to it. It seems passing strange that they now do not wish to speak to it. Are they going to speak to it?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elston: They are not going to speak to it. I have to say that is an unusual situation since we specifically stood this down for them to put their position. It appears that these people have changed their minds, although they will not stand in this Legislature to indicate it. I was of the understanding not long ago that they would support the government position that this amendment not be passed; it now appears they have changed their minds and will vote in favour. I am very much concerned by that sort of change of position.

Apparently they would now like these people who are care providers to be restricted from providing the care they are required to give when someone is assigned to their care. They seem to like the idea that we are going to be putting these hospitals in a position of being jails instead of facilities for treatment.

I have other concerns as well, particularly with respect to situations where it now appears that for the involuntary patient the nearest relative can refuse the treatment as well, and I express my extreme concern about the change of the official opposition.

I am even more concerned when the members refuse to stand in the House and explain their position. As I understand it, this matter was fully debated in the legislative committee and it was defeated in the committee, which is why it is in front of this public forum here today and is moved again by the member for Ottawa Centre, as it is her proper right to do.

Here we again have the official opposition party changing its mind and being afraid, I guess, to express the reasons upon which it bases its decision and to explain to the public the reason it has made that change. I do not understand it. I do not profess to understand them anyway. I do have some concerns that they do not want to tell us why they are going to be supporting this amendment. I will not be supporting the amendment.

Mr. Harris: Had the Minister of Health been anywhere near the Legislature or listening when he was near the Legislature, our leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), has on a number of occasions raised his concern about shock treatment, particularly shock treatment on competent patients against their will without a proper process. We think there is a better way. My leader has spoken on this on a number of occasions.

I understand that if the minister insists and continues for the next year to do nothing, as he has done in the past year, it may cause a few problems for some psychiatrists in the province. We think there is a better way. We think that better way can be arrived at. We have allowed a year for the minister to work towards that, we have allowed a year for the profession to work towards that and our party has come to the opinion that they are not interested in correcting what we think is a problem and now, when this amendment carries, they will be forced to sit down and work out what should be a better way than is currently the practice.

Mr. Reville: The Clark report recommendation 26 is identical to the amendment moved by my friend the member for Ottawa Centre. It is true that the leader of the official opposition raised this matter in the House on November 19. I am not at all surprised to get support on this amendment from the Progressive Conservatives. They know that treatment against consent is, in law, battery unless it is statutorily allowed, and no one in our society should believe that a competent person should not be allowed to decide what kind of medical treatment he or she should have.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have an amendment to the section that was just carried.

Mr. Chairman: Do you have copies?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Under the circumstances, I have only this, which I will provide for you in a moment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Elston moves that the amended subsection 33(51 a) of the bill be further amended to read as follows:

"Clause 35(4)(a) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(a) the nearest relative of an involuntary patient refuses consent or an involuntary patient is not mentally competent and there is no relative of the patient from whom consent may be requested to the provision of a specific psychiatric treatment or a specific course of psychiatric treatment of the patient; and."

Mr. McClellan: I assume the minister is going to show the usual courtesy of sharing his amendment with the opposition parties. Normally, one does this on the basis of two hours' notice, prior to the start of the session. The minister has not done that. He has still not shared copies of the amendment he has just read with anybody, as far as we can tell.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I apologize to the honourable gentleman. This matter has just arisen as a result of a notable change in the position of the official opposition. I will try to run out, get it photocopied and make copies available.

Mr. Chairman: If the member for Bellwoods is making a point of order, that is not an appropriate point of order. The standing orders say, "where practicable," etc. While it is courtesy, it is not in the standing orders that copies must be supplied.

Mr. McClellan: I understand that, but we cannot proceed until copies are shared with the opposition parties.

Mr. Chairman: Let me move the motion and get the debate going. Then we will have copies run off.

Ms. Gigantes: How can we debate it when it is not in front of us?

Mr. Chairman: Fine. Shall we take a five-minute recess while we get them printed?

Agreed to.

The committee recessed at 4:32 p.m.

16:37

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. Will you please take your seats?

Mr. Elston moves that section 33 of the bill, as reprinted by the Attorney General, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(51a) Clause 35(4)(a) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(a) The nearest relative of an involuntary patient refuses consent or an involuntary patient is not mentally competent and there is no relative of the patient from whom consent may be requested to the provision of a specific psychiatric treatment or a specific course of psychiatric treatment of the patient."

Ms. Gigantes: I believe this amendment is out of order. The motion we just passed, which adds subsection 51a, says that in two cases there shall not be an appeal to the review board. In case 1, there is an involuntary, competent patient. That patient decides against a particular course of treatment. There shall be no review to the appeal board.

In case 2, in the motion we just passed, there is an involuntary, noncompetent patient. Under our substitute decision-making process, the nearest relative says, "No, a particular course of treatment shall not be followed," and makes a substitute decision. We have approved that and we have said that this substitute decision shall stand and that it shall not then be taken to the review board and appealed.

The motion before us now is to attempt to remove case 2 and to say that where the process of the law, inadequate as it is -- we offered good amendments in committee on this matter. We offered the best we knew of, the most well-considered suggestions that have been made on substitute decision-making. The minister rejected them and we are left with an old system.

He can live with that system, which he insisted on. That system is our system right now. Where a substitute decision is being made by the nearest relative, our amendment just passed says that shall not be overturned by an appeal to the review board. The minister now is coming along and saying we did not pass that, that we are going to take that section out. It is out of order. It is in conflict with the intent of the motion we just passed. It should not be on the floor of this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think that the -- I am sorry.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Bellwoods. Are you speaking on a point of order?

Mr. McClellan: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: Please go ahead.

Mr. McClellan: I just want to stress my agreement with the member for Ottawa Centre that the amendment is out of order. The correct procedure, as I understand it, would be for the minister to have moved an amendment to our amendment, but he did not do that and the House has passed the amendment of the member for Ottawa Centre to section 33. The way this amendment is drafted is quite clearly out of order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thought this thing did not even exist until that vote was carried. There would have been no need at all to think of amending it. It did not exist for the purposes of the legislation. This particular amendment does have relevance now that this amendment has passed. There was nothing there prior to that. There was no need even to consider amendment at that stage. I do not think we have passed the section in its entirety yet. It has not been closed off for discussion. I think we are able to discuss the content of a section until that section is fully accepted as amended.

The Deputy Chairman: I will be a few minutes while I consult about this.

16:48

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The amendment that was proposed by Ms. Gigantes was adopted. The proper procedure would be to ask the House for authorization to reopen the amendment in order for Mr. Elston to bring in a subamendment. We will then ask for a vote. Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Since we do not have unanimous consent, of course I cannot have that section reopened. However, I will move the addition of clause (aa) to that particular item and will proceed with the wording that was added to Ms. Gigantes's earlier motion.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elston moves that subsection 35(4) of the said act be further amended by adding thereto the following clause:

"(aa) The nearest relative of an involuntary patient refuses consent; or"

Hon. Mr. Elston: That immediately precedes clause 35(4)(a).

Ms. Gigantes: We are into the same problem again. While it is difficult to follow exactly what the minister is proposing to us in his scrambly kind of way, because we have not seen it in writing, what he is proposing is in conflict with the motion we just passed.

We had a motion that said X plus Y equals no review board appeal. The minister is now trying one way and then another way to take out Y. We have passed Y. We had said that in the case of Y, the nearest relative giving substitute consent, there shall be no appeal to the review board. The minister now comes and looks for another way to get rid of Y. We have passed Y. I do not care whether he likes it or not. This House has just passed Y.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the minister have any comments?

Hon. Mr. Elston: May I just have a moment, please?

The Deputy Chairman: Does the committee agree that we have a few moments?

Agreed to.

The committee recessed at 4:52 p.m.

16:58

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The committee pronounced itself on the subject matter. No further amendment can be brought to that subject matter.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I accept your ruling.

The Deputy Chairman: Therefore, I rule the amendment out of order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do accept your ruling. I have some concern about the problems that have been generated by the quick reversal on the part of the official opposition and I do apologize for --

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I was about to apologize for taking up the extra time of the committee, because I do find that to be unfortunate. However, I wanted to indicate that my intention was not to delay the work on this bill. The delay was instigated by a massive reversal of position. I was then merely trying to deal with the question in a sensible, reasonable and understandable fashion from the standpoint of providing service to the patients of the province.

I will now take up the effect of this amendment with the profession and see what we can do to accommodate the needs of the patients in this province first and foremost.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any further amendments to section 33?

Section 33, as amended, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have an amendment to clause 71(c).

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Scott moves that clause 70(1)(c) of the bill be amended by striking out "sections 58, 61, 65 and 67" in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection 58(1), section 61, subsections 65(2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) and section 67."

Hon. Mr. Scott: Perhaps I could explain. As members will know, one of the least significant reforms in the bill, but an important one, none the less, is to remove the designation "British subject" where it appears as a requirement for the performance of certain duties or roles.

It was determined by the committee that the drafters of the bill were right to give an extension of time in which persons who were enrolled as lawyers, for example, by virtue of their British citizenship and having passed the qualifying bar exams, would have an opportunity to become Canadian citizens without in the interim losing their right to practise, which would be the result if there were automatic proclamation.

That is what clause 71(c) is designed to do, to give an extension of time to those who will suffer in that sense because they need time to become Canadian citizens. We included in this section some inappropriate designations, and the effect of this amendment is simply to remove them.

The Deputy Chairman: Further questions or comments?

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The next one is the companion motion, which is subsection 70(4).

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Scott moves that subsection 70(4) of the bill be amended by striking out sections 58, 61, 65 and 67 in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof, "subsection 58(1), section 61, subsections 65(2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) and section 67."

Hon. Mr. Scott: The effect is that this a necessary companion to the amendment just made.

The Deputy Chairman: Any further questions or comments?

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: We have now come to the stage where the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) has a motion.

Mr. O'Connor: He is on his way. He has been summoned and will be here within a minute or two. Perhaps we could wait.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the committee agree that we should wait for a few minutes?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, we could use a moment or two. I am told that you asked whether we carried sections 1 to 69. We could get them out of the way.

The Deputy Chairman: The amendment that was brought by the member for High Park-Swansea includes a section --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Sections 1 to 17 and sections 19 to 69.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall those sections carry?

Sections 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

Sections 19 to 69, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: Who served the summons on the member for High Park-Swansea?

Mr. Shymko: My apologies. I was in the committee of the whole House for an hour and a half or two. I have obligations in another standing committee. My apologies for coming late.

I would like to move the following motion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have your instructions. I have three amendments. One refers to section 18 and would constitute subsections (17) and (18), which we left standing, since it would be affected by subsection 70(1) and subsection 70(6). Would it be possible to deal with the three motions?

The Deputy Chairman: Does the committee agree that we should deal with the three motions?

Agreed.

Mr. Shymko moves:

That section 18 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

"(17) Subsections 18(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) are hereby referred forthwith after the bill receives royal assent of this subsection to a standing committee of the Legislature.

"(18) A standing committee of the Legislature, after giving the public a reasonable opportunity to make submissions at a public hearing, shall report to the Legislative Assembly concerning whether or not in its view subsections 18(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) should be proclaimed in force."

That subsection 70(1) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

"(ba) Subsections 18(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)." That the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(6) Subsections 18(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, but they shall not be so proclaimed into force until after the Legislative Assembly receives and adopts a report of a committee of the Legislature approving their implementation."

Mr. Shymko: I would like to comment as briefly as I can. Mr. Chairman, you are more versed with the procedure of this House than anyone else, so I do not have to remind you or some of my distinguished colleagues who have been here for quite some time that where public input and discussion are deemed appropriate, government bills may go to committee for clause-by-clause consideration after second reading. That has been the procedure all the time. That is why after first and second reading, Bill 7 was sent to committee, specifically to the standing committee on administration of justice. As lawmakers, we felt there was a need for public input and discussion, that it was appropriate for the passage of Bill 7.

17:10

We have made such decisions on a number of bills. The appropriateness of public input and discussion necessitated the appearance of delegations and deputations, scheduled public hearings and at times travelling throughout the province to hear the views of the public on various issues such as the environment, health and education. Normally, clause-by-clause consideration of a bill by a standing or select committee occurs after scheduled public hearings have occurred or deputations have been received. The bill is then normally reported back to the House for third reading if there is unanimous agreement or for consideration by committee of the whole House as we are doing now.

Let me refer to some major pieces of legislation for which we deemed it appropriate to have public input and discussion, as we deemed it appropriate for Bill 7. When the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) presented Bill 7 for first reading and when we heard it for second reading, there was no reference whatsoever to subsections 18(1) to (5), currently before us.

Normally, any public deputation or witness who appears before a committee has read the bill and has seen something in the bill that triggers a reaction. In the course of debate, it is normally a section printed in the bill that upsets people, something that may not be appropriate and that needs some amendment. This is why we had deputations dealing with adults-only buildings, deputations on the question of those aged 16 and 17 and some of the discriminatory aspects of the bill and deputations dealing with the handicapped. It was because there were references to these issues in the printed bill.

In clause-by-clause deliberation, some deputations came because they were lobbying for insertion of another clause. I do not want to use the word, but these witnesses who appeared may or may not have been orchestrated. The member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), who introduced the amendments, subsections 18(1) to (5), may have expressed her concerns after the printing of the bill to a number of people and may have asked for some lobbying efforts before the committee, intending to introduce an amendment at some stage of clause-by-clause deliberation. This is why there was some misunderstanding when I spoke about the lack of public hearings and why there was some violent reaction from my colleagues to the left who said: "Oh, no, Mr. Chairman. We had deputations. We had witnesses who appeared before the committee."

No doubt some were there because they were notified of the possibility of an amendment being brought in and, I am sure, appeared as advocates of the introduction of an amendment. The normal reaction of the vast majority of people is to take a printed bill, of which they all have copies, and if they do not see references to a certain section, they do not appear. We can have a clever game of semantics. We can do our little act about, "Yes, there were full public public hearings." We can do a little game-playing here. But as you know, Mr. Chairman, a vacuum was indeed created.

The process we would normally have followed as responsible legislators on an important issue was circumvented. If someone tells me that section 18 and the question it deals with are insignificant and totally irrelevant and that public input and discussion are not appropriate, he must be out of his mind.

I am sure the Attorney General, had he intended to have this issue raised, would have printed that particular reference to sexual orientation on first reading; or he might have made some amendments and introduced them, at the last minute, on second reading. I know we are capable of reprinting bills. But he did not deem it necessary, or he might not have had any intention at the time of introducing that specific reference to sexual orientation. This is what I refer to as a clever, manipulative circumventing of the normal process of the passage of law as I understand it and as most people understand it.

I have been asked to write an article in my local paper, the Bloor West Villager, a very prominent local paper, for which I have a great deal of admiration.

An hon. member: We all subscribe to that.

Mr. Wildman: A periodical all of us read.

Mr. Shymko: We all subscribe. Members can find it in the legislative library. I am honoured that my views on Bill 7 will be parallel to those of the leader of the third party. The topic of my one and a half double-spaced pages of views is that the passage of the gay rights amendment tramples on the democratic rights of all Ontarians, who did not have the opportunity, as we had on other bills, to have public input.

I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that when we presented Bill 30, the Education Amendment Act, the population of Ontario knew very well our stand on the completion of Catholic school funding. They knew all three parties would be for it; they knew there was no division, except for perhaps two or three or five members; they knew where we stood politically. Yet we had full public hearings on Bill 30, the amendment to the Education Act, knowing full well the political position and stand taken by all three leaders, by all three caucuses, whose majority support had pretty well decided that funding would be completed. However, that did not prevent us from allowing full public hearings.

Having voted on subsections 18(1) to (5), we know very well the divisions, we know the numbers. Twelve of us were absent, one of those being myself. I do not know what the reasons were for some honourable members to be absent, but as I told you, Mr. Chairman, I decided to boycott that particular vote because I had no opportunity to consult my own electors. As far as I am concerned, "Vox populi, vox dei," as the Latin saying goes: The voice of the people is a divine voice. We constantly refer to this, usually after an election, when a particular party or combination of parties effects certain changes in the seating arrangement in this chamber.

We say this is the voice of the people, and it is the voice of the people that counts. We speak of the democratic process, and this is why. We did have full public hearings for almost a year and a half on Bill 30, on the amendment to the Education Act, knowing full well it would go through. We know that if the 12 members had been present here, subsections 18(1) to (5) would have passed. Unless something happens at the committee stage of hearings where we have a major switch of opinions, which is possible, it will pass.

I cannot understand why the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in his wisdom, the leader of the third party and the mover of the amendment to subsections 18(1) to 18(5) have reservations about allowing for two or three months of public hearings.

We have seen in section 70 that some subsections will not be proclaimed and will not come into force for a number of reasons. The Attorney General introduced today the issue of handicapped persons and the impact one subsection will have on the Employment Standards Act. He has asked us to support him. It is only on March 1, 1987, that the proclamation and the coming into force of that issue will be effected. We have exempted section 14 from being proclaimed and coming into force until March 1, 1987.

Why not exempt subsections 18(1) to (5) from coming into force until April or May 1987? Will there be a cataclysmic tragedy in this province because we listen to the people and follow a democratic process, a democracy, which is fundamental in the name of the third party? It is the New Democratic Party.

17:20

I have spoken to the rank-and-file membership of the NDP. They are seriously concerned that there are no public hearings. It makes a great deal of sense to them, if we are postponing the proclamation of section 14 dealing with the handicapped and if we are postponing, for example, subsections 12(2), 12(3), 12(4) and 12(5) from coming into effect until July 1988. These are references to the public school electors having an impact on the Education Act. We are saying: "Let us wait. Let us give an exception to those sections until July 1988."

We have no hesitancy. We do not hesitate to exempt subsections 25(2), (3), (4) and (5), subsections 37(2) and (3) and sections 58, 61, 65 and 67 from being proclaimed and coming into force until July 1989, two years from now. We have no reservations.

This deals with the whole question of citizenship and the reference to "British subject," which affects the following acts: the Law Society Act, the Municipal Act, the Public Officers Act, the Railways Act, the Statute Labour Act, the Surveyors Act and a number of acts in which it has been deemed important to wait for almost two years.

My request is very reasonable. The precedent has been set in the past, and I referred to Bill 30, the Education Amendment Act. I can also refer to Bill 51, the Residential Rent Regulation Act, which went through full public hearings. I can refer to Bill 54, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act. Bill 55, the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act, followed the same process. With the famous Bill 94, the Health Care Accessibility Act, there were full public hearings, fair and square. We listened. We were not circumventing. We were not playing some kind of a clever game to prevent the public from presenting their views, whatever views on whatever side of the issue of sexual orientation they may be. This is not all.

Let me read the Assessment Amendment Act. What priority does the minister see in Bill 131, the Assessment Amendment Act? Has anybody read Bill 131? We do not even know what Bill 131 is all about. That is how minor the significance of that bill, but it went to the standing committee on general government, which allowed for public input.

The minister remembers Bill 75, the Education Amendment Act; it was the same thing. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is still at the committee stage. It was considered in May, June and July and continues to allow for public input. I refer to another bill that has been deemed important for public delegations and public consultation, Bill 64, the Labour Relations Amendment Act, which was referred to the standing committee on resources development and received royal assent on May 26, 1986. I refer to Bill 116, the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, introduced by the minister who is sitting here today listening carefully to my remarks.

I am sure that in his heart and mind and soul he is agreeing with what I am saying. His bill went to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. He would not have dared have his bill circumvent public hearings. He would not have followed the example of the Attorney General, because he is much too smart, much too sensitive and has too much respect for the democratic process. I give credit to the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and to the various ministers who introduced the bills I have referred to for their respect for the parliamentary process of full public hearings.

They had nothing to hide. They knew full well that, following the democratic process, the bills would be passed. However, even if we know that hearings will have no impact on changing the minister's mind, even if there are preconceived notions and policies, and whatever arrangements may have been made between the two parties that have formed this unholy alliance for the past year and a half so that they know full well certain bills will pass, one still does not circumvent the democratic process.

Let me continue. I could go on and on referring to this process. I intended at first to introduce an amendment or motion on third reading. I still have that option, but there is a problem with introducing an amendment on third reading. I was given the misinformation that third reading allowed for a partial recommittal of a section of a bill to a committee of the Legislature without impacting on the rest of the bill, so that an entire bill could be proclaimed except for a particular section. According to the Clerk, in his wisdom, I understand that if I were to introduce a motion for full public hearings on third reading, we would have to suspend the entire bill for two o three months.

It is not my intention to suspend the entire bill if in the wisdom of the members of this Legislature, we allow for what we are doing to a number of sections. They may not be as divisive and emotional. This is why the Attorney General has no problem about proclamation of section 14 being deferred until March 1, 1987. Perhaps the question of a British subject versus Canadian citizen is not an emotional problem and we can hold off the proclamation and coming into force of that until July 1989. However, this is specifically the reason: If something is divisive and emotional you do not avoid it; you face it and allow for public hearings.

There is the sheer hypocrisy of the sanctimonious, pretentious statements I hear about consulting the people, about the party that represents the working class, about the party that would never dare to circumvent, about the party that passes resolutions on various moral issues and has a stand.

Mr. McClellan: How did you vote?

Mr. Shymko: I will tell the member right now how I will vote.

Mr. Breaugh: When you had the chance, what did you do?

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

17:30

Mr. Shymko: We will be voting on this bill, but unless the government allows for the public democratic process, which we have allowed for in other bills on which we have deemed that public input and discussion were not only appropriate but also necessary, if it does not follow the same procedure with Bill 7, it pains me, but I, along with many members, will not vote for Bill 7.

I will not be trapped. I will not become a partner to a mockery of the democratic process and to the clever game-playing that two parties are involved in. As I have pointed out, and I repeat this time and time again, if certain members of this Legislature and certain parties see the issue as being only a human rights issue --

Mr. McClellan: Like your leader.

Mr. Shymko: Including my leader.

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Shymko: We have a free vote in our caucus. We do not put on marching boots and follow the dictates of others. We do not walk around in marching boots. We have a free vote, and I know some of the honourable colleagues of the members opposite were absent as well.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Shymko: Why, for example, was the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) absent? Have you questioned your member?

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Please address the chair.

Mr. Shymko: Anyway, I will not be tempted to react to the heckling of the third party.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The camera just showed the back of your head.

Mr. Shymko: Absolutely. You may see my bald spot or something. I will have to face the camera.

No, I am not doing this for cameras, as my honourable colleagues know very well, but for the very principle of democracy.

Perhaps some honourable colleagues believe this is a human rights issue only and not a moral issue. To me, it is a moral and a human rights issue; it is both.

Ironically, it is December 10 today, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So many of my colleagues have risen today in the House and have spoken in very eloquent ways about the importance of human rights. Let me remind our honourable colleagues that those jurisdictions where human rights are trampled on do not have the support, the respect and the protection that we have. Very often in those jurisdictions there is a trampling on or a circumvention of the democratic process.

Democracy is also a right. Unfortunately, today democracy is becoming a privilege, since the vast majority of humanity does not live in regimes and systems where democracy prevails -- an increasing majority, as we watch in the last decades the number of states that succumb to a different system.

Thus, I say again, as my House leader signals to me that I should be wrapping up my comments, that the government cannot implement human rights if it tramples on democratic rights. It cannot present itself as the champion of human rights if at the same time it tramples on democratic rights, on the right of people to be heard, the same people who elected them to this great chamber, this Legislative Assembly, and for whom they have the greatest respect prior to an election and immediately after an election.

I remind the members opposite that there will be an election in the future, whether it will be in the spring of 1987 or in the fall of 1987, and it will boomerang on them. I will tell them why it will boomerang. This will be under the surface, not because of the stand they have taken one way or the other on section 18, but because of the decision they have made and are going to make in the next minute or two with reference to my motion, a decision to circumvent democracy and to trample on the democratic rights of our citizens by not allowing full public hearings -- a question of two months, three months at the maximum, the end of March, beginning of April.

Why is the government so afraid of public hearings? For the life of me, I cannot understand why it fears two to three months of public hearings. Why is it afraid to give exemption for the proclamation of one section, which the minister knows will pass anyway, to allow for a few months of public hearings? Why this fear?

I have tried to understand it and I cannot. It is absurd. I repeat to the members that implementing human rights by trampling on democratic rights destroys both, makes a farce of both, and jeopardizes both human rights and democratic rights.

Mr. Mancini: That is not the Yuri Shymko I know.

Mr. Shymko: That is the Yuri Shymko the member knows, and that is the guy he will continue to know in the future. It is a matter of very important principle to me.

In conclusion, now that my House leader has signalled for the second or third time that I should wrap up, I hope the government, in its wisdom and in its sense of what is defined as responsible public servants, as responsible representatives of the people -- as the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) has said, voce di popole is the most important principle he follows in his riding. Voce di popole; "the voice of the people" in Italian.

I appeal to the government to reconsider my humble request, which will bail out both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party from an issue that I say sincerely will affect the members dramatically. That is my own humble assessment.

The government has done a relatively good job so far, but it is making a terrible mistake by not allowing for two or three months of public hearings, by exempting the proclamation of section 18, as the minister has done for a number of sections, by not allowing some subsections to come into force until July 1989.

Mr. Harris: I will be brief. I want to say a few words on behalf of not only myself but also a large number of my colleagues in my caucus who had difficulty with the process this bill followed, who voted against the inclusion of subsections 18(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) last week. They all expressed concerns, with reference to the motion put forward by my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea, in addition to other concerns they may have had, all of them expressed this concern, that public hearings on this bill were not held to the extent they might have been held.

They believe that interpretation of the words "sexual orientation" was being done very differently by many proponents and opponents of the amendment and that getting full and open hearings on this could have helped to clarify what exactly is meant by the term "sexual orientation," how far it goes and what it covers.

They also were uncertain about services, whether it is government services or all services. They expressed some very thoughtful and legitimate concerns about Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, Big Brothers and Big Sisters and about adoption. Even proponents were giving different answers in many of these areas. Some said it did cover certain areas, some said it did not and some said it could not under any circumstances.

17:40

We have read many articles in which many proponents of the amendments feel that, if this section carries the way it is, it will entitle them to challenge the Charter of Rights and Freedoms legitimately in the areas in which they expressed these concerns. My colleagues felt that by having hearings that were advertised and that everyone knew about, we could have cleared up many of these items.

We have an opportunity now, with the amendment put forward by the member for High Park-Swansea, to correct what many of my colleagues feel was not the right way to proceed, particularly on the significant amendment of subsections 18(1) through (5).

The Attorney General indicated in his remarks to the section that these were essential to comply with the charter. We know that is not true; otherwise, they would have been in the original bill. I believe the government and the Attorney General proceeded in the way they did to try to circumvent some public input on it.

I think the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) and the New Democratic Party, under the legislative process that was available to them, used the only method they had to introduce these amendments and to proceed with them, which was at the committee stage. They found a bill to which they could raise an issue. Not being the government, they were not in a position to bring forward a bill, and they had to find the first opportunity, since the only vehicle for an opposition party is to find a bill to which it can attach amendments according to a principle it has espoused and believes in very strongly.

I want to make clear that I do not associate my remarks about circumventing the process with the New Democratic Party. They did what they had to do to bring an issue forward through the only vehicle and mechanism they had. But I do criticize the government party, because they had a more honest mechanism available to them, which was to include the sexual orientation amendment in the bill from the beginning so that when the bill went to committee, it could have received the broad hearings that I think it was entitled to receive.

Those are some of the concerns that members of my party have had with the section. With the amendment put forward by my colleague, we have an opportunity to correct this problem -- in a very unusual fashion, I might add, because it will permit all the rest of the sections of the bill to go forward and to be proclaimed, save and except this one contentious section, which I and a very large number of my colleagues submit was presented in such a fashion as to circumvent full public hearings and full public access, which I believe could have cleared up a number of the uncertainties that are there.

Therefore, on behalf of our party, I ask all members of the House to support this amendment. It will correct something that should not have happened in the first place. It will allow full public hearings. It will allow an opportunity to clear up what appear to be a number of misunderstandings. I think that not to support it would be not to act as responsible legislators at this time.

I call on members of this House to support the Conservative Party in this amendment and to change what I understand are the minds of members in the other two parties who are leaning towards, or were leaning before I spoke, towards not supporting this.

Ms. Gigantes: I will speak very briefly. Actually, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak. When the member for High Park-Swansea spoke in our committee discussion during the regular consideration of subsections 18(1) to (5), he made several erroneous statements about the nature of the process that had been followed in consideration of Bill 7. I, for one, feel an enormous sense of relief that it looks as if we may actually complete our work on Bill 7. I point out to the member for High Park-Swansea that work on this bill for the justice committee began in January 1986 and will be completed in December 1986. The work included three months of public hearings.

I find it strange that members of the Conservative Party, who, after all, were well represented on the justice committee, are now running around crying out that the democratic process was not followed and that people were not informed about the nature of amendments coming before the committee, although those amendments and in particular the amendments I put forward concerning sexual orientation, were circulated to all members of the justice committee in the early days of February 1986. We then had hearings over the course of three months with many presentations, with most in favour, but with a couple against those amendments.

That members of that very justice committee now should be willing to support the notion that there were no public hearings and that people were not informed about the nature of amendments coming before the committee is nonsense. They had three months to do what I was unable to do, in spite of all my best efforts, which was to write to every person in Ontario to let them know the nature of the amendments I was putting forward on the subject of sexual orientation as affected by the Human Rights Code.

They were derelict in their duty. I do not know what they were doing with their time. If they felt this was an issue of such moment, why were they not speaking, as I was, to let everybody know about the issue? I put out press releases. I talked to the press. I talked to everybody I could find who was interested. Why were they not doing that? Now they want us to go back, when we have already worked for 10 months and into 11 months, almost for 12 months, on this bill, and have more public hearings.

The chairman of our committee, a Conservative chairman, sits here and listens to a member of his caucus say we did not have full public hearings. He should rise up in rage or he should bow down in shame that he did not do his political duty and let people know how concerned he was on this issue. What was he doing?

Fortunately, the people of Ontario are well aware --

Mr. Brandt: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman: The member has named me with respect to my responsibilities and duties as chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice. I would like to join in enlightening the member as to the full flow of business that came before that committee by associating myself entirely with the remarks of my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea with respect to what he said happened during the course of the so-called hearings.

I want to point out to the member for Ottawa Centre that, in fact -- and I say this only by way of indicating what really transpired during the process of the so-called hearings that occurred with the justice committee -- there were no hearings on the amendments the member is speaking to now with respect to Bill 7. The hearings were on other matters entirely and dealt with such matters as adults-only apartment buildings. There was no advertising whatsoever relative to these amendments, which were brought in very late. They were very contentious and there was no opportunity for hearings because of the manner in which the third party raised the whole issue, the manner in which they brought in the amendments --

The Deputy Chairman: I have to bring you to order.

Mr. Brandt: May I conclude?

The Deputy Chairman: For 30 seconds.

17:50

Mr. Brandt: I will conclude quickly by saying that I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, who has pointed out very specifically that this cuts across the grain of the entire democratic process and the democratic rights of people who wanted to have their views heard on this issue.

Ms. Gigantes: I can only conclude from the remarks of the chairman of the justice committee that he did not read the amendments I so carefully circulated in the early days of February, which were circulated to members of the justice committee in advance of those dealing with the question of adults-only apartment buildings. We did not have special hearings on adults-only apartment buildings.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Your debate must be on the amendment, on the motion presented by the member for High Park-Swansea.

Ms. Gigantes: I am addressing myself to the motion. The motion is a challenge to the process we have been through. I am addressing myself to the substance of that motion by giving my view of the process.

The Deputy Chairman: Continue.

Ms. Gigantes: I think you will find my view borne out by Hansard, by the record of the committee hearings. We did not hold special hearings on any particular clause of Bill 7; we held three months of hearings on Bill 7, on the amendments that were being circulated. Any member was free to notify whomever in the public by special appeal that it would be useful to have submissions on any particular subject.

The process was one that I think has produced a happy result. There are people in this Legislature and indeed there are people in this province who are not happy with the result. In speaking to subsections 18(1) to (5), the Attorney General said that they did not deprive anybody of any right. That is not quite true because they do deprive some people who wish to discriminate against homosexuals of that right.

I will not support the motion. I find the description of the process to be very strange. I think anybody who looks at the public record of the justice committee, as recorded in Hansard, will find that my view of the matter is borne out by the public record.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Shymko has moved amendments to sections 18 and 70.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, the next item is to pass sections 18, 70 and 71.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Section 70, as amended, agreed to.

Section 71 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, before you recognize that it is six of the clock, I should inform the House that, according to the business statement made last Thursday, we will be debating the conflict-of-interest reports that are in Orders and Notices in various order numbers tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

December 10, 1986

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIVE FISHING AGREEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS LEGISLATION

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

RESIGNATION OF ADVISORY COUNCIL PRESIDENT

MERCHANTS' USE OF FIREARMS

ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE

RECOGNITION OF DISABLED ATHLETE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

JOHN CHARLES POLANYI PRIZES

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

BROADCAST AREA EXPANSION

ORAL QUESTIONS

DOWNSVIEW REHABILITATION CENTRE

PENSION BENEFITS LEGISLATION

RESIGNATION OF ADVISORY COUNCIL PRESIDENT

EXTRA BILLING

ACCESS TO ABORTION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT OF GRAVEL PIT

TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

MINISTRY RELOCATION

MERCHANTS' USE OF FIREARMS

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

SUNDAY TRADING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RÈGLEMENTS ET DES PROJETS DE LOI D'INTÊRÉT PRIVÉ

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETING

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE