Journal des débats 1986-nov-26 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Gordon: The message northerners are getting from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is that we do not count in his eyes. We in this House hear the Premier say the executives of Goodyear should come before the select committee on finance and economic affairs when there are layoffs and plant closures; yet when 500 men are going to be laid off in the next couple of years at Falconbridge in Sudbury, with the attendant heartbreak and sorrow that comes over those families and with the lack of retraining for those workers, then the Premier does nothing.

It is quite evident to me and my party that the current government has a double standard. It has one standard for vote-rich Toronto and another for the north.

A regional councillor in the region of Sudbury will put forward tonight a motion asking the Premier to reconsider his very bad decision not to call an inquiry into the Falconbridge layoffs. The Premier is at present the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. If he will not call an inquiry, why does he not resign?

RECOGNITION OF PSYCHOANALYST

Mr. Henderson: I am pleased to tell this assembly that my psychoanalytic colleague, Dr. Julio Szmuilowicz, was elected chairman of the Ontario Medical Association's 5,000-member District 11, Toronto, on November 20. Dr. Szmuilowicz, a chief organizer of the Association of Concerned Physicians, maintained a vigorous presence in our public gallery last summer. He is passionately committed to patient and doctor freedom and to personal liberty. Dr. Szmuilowicz and I are psychoanalytic colleagues and classmates.

In the early decades of psychoanalysis, Freud and his Vienna colleagues were denounced by psychiatrists, physicians, academics and governments as quacks and sophists. Today they have become an international movement with branch societies worldwide. Psychoanalysts occupy the office of dean of medicine at the University of Toronto and chair the OMA's District 11. They have chaired departments of psychiatry in four of the five Ontario medical schools and served in legislatures, in at least one cabinet and in Canadian public office.

Psychoanalysts themselves undergo analysis and often embrace a radical humanism and individualism in their political outlook. Detesting group-think, they sometimes seem attractive targets, but they are hard people to push around.

Dr. Szmuilowicz's chairmanship bodes well for patient and doctor freedom in Ontario.

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Stevenson: I am pleased to congratulate Brigid Pyke, who was elected yesterday as the new president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Her obvious ability, her sharp agricultural mind and her breadth of knowledge on agricultural issues and problems gives her an ideal background to represent the 24,000 members of the OFA. Her wide range of experience includes having been a columnist with the Kingston-Whig Standard and leadership positions in numerous agricultural groups. Mrs. Pyke has firsthand experience of the problems facing farmers because she and her family operate a farm on Wolf Island.

Women have taken active roles in agriculture for generations, but leadership positions, other than in women's agricultural groups, have been dominated by men. Brigid Pyke joins Renie Long, president of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, as the second woman to take a leadership position in a major farm organization. Never before has the need for strong leadership in agricultural lobbying groups been more critical than it is at present. Farmers are making production decisions well ahead of new government policies by our government.

The Progressive Conservative Party looks forward to continuing to work with the OFA, Brigid Pyke and the new executive for the betterment of agriculture.

STORE SECURITY SYSTEM

Mr. Breaugh: A constituent of mine brought a rather unusual problem to my attention this morning. She and her son went shopping at a store called Titan, which is a new store in Pickering. Before they were allowed admittance to the store, they were asked for bank accounts and social insurance numbers, and photographs were taken of them.

My constituent raised with me the spectre that apparently there is a membership fee of about $25 charged for joining what I take it is some kind of a buyers' club to shop at this store. She was not informed of that until she arrived at the door and she was taken aback by the fact that before she and her son could go in and look at the merchandise in the store, all this other process took place.

I can understand, for example, had there been a requirement here to use one of the store's credit cards she might have been asked for the normal credit information, but it seems to me this constituent made it clear that she and her son simply wanted to see what the store was like. In order to gain admittance to the store itself, they virtually had to go through a complete security check, reveal their bank accounts and have identity photographs taken.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) may not be aware of this, but I would like him to take a look at it. This is certainly a practice I find to be a very disturbing trend in merchandising.

SIMCOE DAY

Mr. McLean: A memorable day for Simcoe county began with the November 24 visit of some students of Park Street school in Orillia to the parliament buildings here. I had the honour to introduce the first Simcoe Day Act to the House in their presence.

In a number of municipalities throughout Ontario, the public holiday that is celebrated on August 1 each year is known unofficially as Simcoe Day, but it seems that is not so in the municipalities in Simcoe county, and that should be rectified. What better opportunity could there have been than when the future leaders of our community were present last Monday? Therefore, I brought in a private member's bill known as the Simcoe Day Àct, its purpose being to change the name of the holiday that is usually held on the first Monday in August from whatever it may be termed at present to Simcoe Day.

By making this change, we acknowledge the many contributions made by John Graves Simcoe, the man who was appointed on September 12, 1791, as the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, now called Ontario. As every schoolchild learns, John Graves Simcoe convened the first Legislative Assembly in our province and established Toronto, then known as York, as the capital of Ontario.

The actual wording of the Simcoe Day Act states, "Where the first Monday in August in any year is proclaimed a public holiday in a municipality, the name of that holiday shall be named Simcoe Day."

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Laughren: Late yesterday afternoon when I returned to my office, there was a phone message indicating that I should call my constituency office. When I did so, I was informed there was yet another layoff in northeastern Ontario -- in this case, 254 hourly-rated employees at the Eddy Forest Products mill in Nairn Centre, which is in my constituency.

The reason I raise it at this time is that I hope to impress upon the government, particularly the Treasury benches, that the amount, degree or the kind of government intervention occurring in northern Ontario is woefully inadequate. Transferring civil servants to northern Ontario and holding conferences in northeastern Ontario are simply not enough.

The government has to come to grips with the fact that the unemployment problems in the north are structural in nature and will be resolved only when those structural problems are addressed. Whether this government sees itself as a free enterprise government or otherwise, there is going to have to be intervention in the economic affairs of northern Ontario before this very acute problem of growing unemployment in northern Ontario is resolved.

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I would like to join the member for Durham York (Mr. Stevenson) in extending congratulations from this side of the House to Brigid Pyke on her election as president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I know the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes) would join us as well, if the rules permitted.

Ms. Pyke appeared before the select committee on finance and economic affairs, and I have also heard her speak to the Waterloo Federation of Agriculture. She is a tough gal. She is going to make an excellent contribution to the debate on behalf of agriculture.

Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member had his 90 seconds. Each member has up to 90 seconds.

Mr. Stevenson: There were still a few seconds left on the clock and I rose to bring forward another issue in my riding.

Mr. Speaker: As I understand the standing order, each member has up to 90 seconds, unless I am misinterpreting the rules.

Mr. Stevenson: As I understand the rules, each member can take up to 90 seconds on any statement. If I wished to take all the statements of our party and give two or three 90-second statements, that would be available to me.

Mr. Speaker: I may have made an error of judgement. I am not certain, because this has not arisen on a previous occasion. I hope the member will be happy to make a more lengthy statement tomorrow on the same subject.

RESCUE OF SOVIET SOLDIERS

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next order of business, I would like to inform the members that we have five guests in the Speaker's gallery. I would like to introduce these five guests to the members of the House. They are Nikolay Golovin, Sergei Busov, Vladim Plotnikov, Igor Kovalchuk and Vladislav Naumov. Please join me in welcoming these guests.

It is my understanding that representatives of all parties would like to make a few comments of welcome.

Mr. Shymko: I request unanimous consent of the House to say a few words, along with other colleagues from all parties.

Agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: In welcoming these five heroic individuals, we can describe them as conscientious objectors in refusing to be partners in crime and associated with a regime that the former leader of the New Democratic Party of Ontario and the present Canadian ambassador to the United Nations described as a regime whose principle is to believe in butchering instead of negotiations. They have refused to be part and parcel of a butchering machine of more than 115,000 foreign soldiers occupying Afghanistan, which has resulted in more than 1.5 million victims, men, women and children, who have indeed been butchered by those occupying forces.

In greeting them, I want to remind the honourable members, as we are approaching the festive season of Christmas, that it was at this time when man spoke of peace on earth to all men of goodwill, at this season of brotherhood when messages of love and peace tried to unite all humanity, that at Christmas 1979 Afghanistan was invaded.

None of us want to make any political, demagogic statements today, but I want to say that these individuals represent the best in humanity. When war criminals were tried in Nuremberg, we did not accept the excuse that one had to follow orders or that what one committed because one blindly followed orders was exempt. These men refused to follow orders and risked their lives. I want to remind the members that each of them has been sentenced to death in absentia as a deserter. They would all have faced the firing squad had they been caught. They have risked a great deal to be privileged to live in this land of freedom so many of us take for granted.

I want to conclude by saying that their appeal to me as I welcomed them today during lunch in the dining room was that, although they are here enjoying life, freedom and liberty, more than 3.5 million Afghani refugees are today bitterly awaiting some assistance in various refugee camps. There are more than 100,000 wounded, among them many children, who would like to have the assistance of countries such as Canada to take them to hospitals and to alleviate their suffering. Perhaps today is a reminder to all of us that we should provide the assistance to those freedom fighters in Afghanistan who need help in terms of medication and assistance for the wounded and the ailing.

I welcome them, and I want to say it is thanks to the efforts of Serge Jusyp of the Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church that they are here today. It is thanks to the assistance of Robert Mykytiuk of the Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society that they are here today. It is thanks to the assistance of many organizations, including that of our Secretary for External Affairs, the Right Honourable Joe Clark, and our government, which have made very determined efforts to have them here with us in Canada. We welcome Andrew Klimov, representing the Russian Orthodox Church, and Mrs. Slava Stetsko, president of ABN International, two individuals who have fought very hard for the cause of liberty for all men.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the privilege of saying a few words in addressing these five heroes.

Mr. Rae: It is a fact of Ontario and Canadian history that refugees from Russia and from the Soviet Union have made this country their home for a century. It is important for our recent visitors to know that, in joining us in this country and, we hope very much, in this province, they are part of a wonderful tradition in which those who have found oppression have looked to this country for freedom.

What I would like to say to these gentlemen is that they are so welcome in our country. We salute them for their courage. Like freedom-loving peoples all over the world, we object strongly and deeply to the events that are going on in Afghanistan, which have been described in such eloquent terms at the United Nations by my predecessor, Mr. Lewis. I say not in jest but in all seriousness that the one great quality of coming to this country is that they can choose which political party to support, or whether they want to support one at all, and can choose how to live their lives and how to participate in our life here.

We wish them well. We hope they will be able to find work and a sense of being at home in this country. We hope we are going to be as generous in reality as we would like to be in spirit. We welcome them all here, and we thank those who made this visit possible.

13:50

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I join with the other members who have already spoken in welcoming the five young men who have come to Canada under such interesting and, I am sure, exhausting circumstances. If all else fails, I am sure they could very well make a good living by recounting to all the citizens of this country their experiences, both in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, most particularly, in the three years they have just ended in Afghanistan.

The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) indicated the importance of our recognition of the state of life that these men have abandoned to search out something better, something we hope we are continuing to improve, in this nation. I was quite interested to notice that on the list of those to whom he gave thanks and congratulations for their presence was the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I thought he might have mentioned as well the people at the Kingston Whig-Standard and some others. People who are interested in foreign affairs and who follow politics closely can make their own judgements on these matters.

The five gentlemen who are in the gallery at present are most welcome. We will follow their new careers in this province and in this country with the greatest of interest and we hope with suitable assistance. While we are far from perfect in our own jurisdiction, every day, as my colleague the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) pointed out to me a moment ago, we pray that this is going to be a jurisdiction where freedom prevails and justice rules. That is our goal, and we are honoured and delighted that these five young men have joined us here in pursuit of it.

13:53

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LIQUOR WAREHOUSES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to make a brief statement in reaction to the release yesterday of the Provincial Auditor's report as it relates to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

In his report, the Provincial Auditor drew attention to inventory shortages of $434,000 at the leased Kipling Avenue warehouse and $271,000 at two public warehouses.

First, let me deal with the Kipling Avenue warehouse, which now has been closed down and operations transferred to the Durham region computerized warehouse. The LCBO recently set up a task force to investigate these matters, and I am informed that its preliminary results indicate that about 70 per cent of the discrepancies, amounting to more than $300,000, is the result of paper error, computer tape problems and book entries; so these figures do not represent revenue loses. Another approximately $100,000 of this shortage is a result of theft. In this connection, four employees and one outsider have been charged for some portion of this.

In regard to the two public warehouses, $184,000 of the $271,000 in discrepancies was due to data input errors or problems relating to procedural error. This was based on a stock inventory testing of only five brands and noted in the Provincial Auditor's report.

Figures regarding paper and computer input error may be found to be higher, thus lowering the overall discrepancy factors, after the LCBO task force has completed its investigation. I am informed by the chairman of the LCBO that the task force investigation into these matters will be completed within two weeks. He will then present his final report to me.

I should point out that the discrepancies outlined in the Provincial Auditor's report cover an operational period of two years, not just one year. For the information of the House, I should also mention that sales through the LCBO amount to about $1.6 billion annually; so we are talking about two years of operation that amount to sales in excess of $3.2 billion.

None the less, even these relatively small losses through theft, in comparison to total sales and stock inventory over two years, have caused the LCBO to implement improved security measures that, along with more sophisticated computerized systems now in place, should reduce theft opportunities.

In connection with the Provincial Auditor's observation relating to the $245,000 paid for import duties for inventory that never existed in the first place, I understand that when the adjustments are made to correct book entry errors, these moneys will be reclaimed from the federal government.

Mr. Gillies: In response to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I am not sure I can become as angry as my colleague in his comment on adult education, although this is a serious matter.

The Provincial Auditor pointed out yesterday in his report that $434,000 worth of liquor was missing from the Kipling Avenue warehouse. We see this as very serious. Now that the minister has pointed out that this was over two years and not just over one, I guess it is okay and the auditor should apologize to the minister for even having brought it up.

We actually do take this quite seriously. I can see from recent events brought up in this House how liquor can go missing in this government. It tends to wind up in most unusual places, here and there. We hope the minister will take this matter very seriously. I guess we as members should take some solace in the fact that the majority of the loss, according to the minister's statement, was due to poor accounting and other procedures as opposed to theft.

None the less, from a public accounts point of view, I am sure the minister will agree that procedures have to be put in place to ensure that this is not repeated on an ongoing basis. I encourage him to do everything within his power to keep a close watch on his liquor.

Mr. Philip: I will respond to the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As I was on my way into the lockup yesterday, a reporter asked me, "What will be in the auditor's report?" I said: "There is one thing I can guarantee. There will be a criticism of the LCBO, because it is there every year."

Year after year, those of us on the standing committee on public accounts have had that body before us with constant examples of squandering from the public purse. This year was no different. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was told by members of this party, myself included, that there were problems at the Kipling warehouse. He did nothing about any of those problems, be they personnel or other problems.

Of course, now we have him saying he set up an inquiry. It is interesting that he does not mention when the inquiry was set up. I think we will find that the inquiry was set up after the Provincial Auditor came to his ministry and said: "There are problems in our audit with the LCBO. More than $600,000 worth of liquor is unaccounted for."

It is not as though it is just this one agency of this ministry. The auditor's report is also critical of the management by this minister and this ministry of other agencies under his control. Page 47 of the report deals with inadequate control of lottery licences by the lotteries branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Whenever we bring to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that there is a problem in his ministry, he acts either as an apologist for the bureaucrats or, in so many cases, as an apologist for large corporations such as those in the insurance industry.

Since the days of Sidney Handleman we have not had a minister who has done so little for the consumers of Ontario and who has exercised his responsibility in this province so little. The minister owes an apology to the taxpayers as well as to the members of the House for his inept management of his ministry.

ADULT EDUCATION

Hon. Mr. Conway: Public school boards in Ontario provide approved adult education programs to both public and separate ratepayers of the board without the payment of a fee. The programs are funded through a combination of provincial grants and local property taxes.

The changes in tax assessment accompanying the implementation of Bill 30 on January 1, 1987, have created some concern that public school boards will be unable to continue offering such programs to adult separate school supporters. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to announce a new formula for the funding of continuing education programs in Ontario schools.

Effective January 1, 1987, the grant for continuing education courses that are eligible for grant assistance will be equal to a fixed dollar amount for each full-time equivalent pupil enrolled in the program. For 1987, that fixed dollar amount will be $1,900. The grant is designed to cover the full cost of providing continuing education programs and will not require any taxes from local ratepayers.

The continuing education courses eligible for this assistance include adult credit courses, adult basic education, which includes English or French as a second language, citizenship and language instruction and adult basic literacy and numeracy and, finally, correspondence courses.

I would like to add that school boards which might otherwise lose funding under this new formula are guaranteed their current grant, based on the previous formula, for the period from January 1, 1987, to August 31, 1987. No board will be placed at a disadvantage because of the change I am announcing, and in fact many school boards will actually benefit from the new funding formula.

Because the new grant will be payable to school boards at 100 per cent, references to residency, direction of tax support and differences in rates of grant are no longer applicable.

I want to assure the House of my ministry's continued commitment to the provision of adult education and to draw the House's attention to the work of the task force headed by Jane Dobell of the Ottawa Board of Education. Mrs. Dobell and her group have arranged with the Ontario Association of Education Administration Officials to examine the cost of offering representative continuing education programs, and its findings will help to determine the grant for each full-time equivalent pupil after 1987.

Providing an opportunity for residents of Ontario to receive adult education programs is an ongoing concern of this government and this ministry. With the new funding formula in place, I am confident we can continue to support continuing education programs throughout our school system.

Mr. Davis: If this were not such a serious matter affecting education in this province, the minister's response would be laughable.

The minister was informed that he was going to experience difficulty in this area of the delivery of education more than two years ago, during the debates on Bill 30, by such distinguished persons as Mrs. Penny Moss, chairman of the Toronto Board of Education; Jane Dobell, who came and told him; and my colleague the New Democratic Party Education critic, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), as well as myself. Today, he has decided to act.

The minister has again demonstrated his inability and ineffectuality in responding to educational concerns. His cavalier attitude in this area has been a major contribution to bringing about confusion, misunderstanding and chaos in the education circles of this province.

We see this action in response to Bill 75, where this minister has refused to meet with people and boards that are having great difficulty, such as the Prescott-Russell board and the Sudbury board. It took this minister two and a half years to arrive at a decision that was very straightforward and was the only decision he could arrive at.

He should be ashamed of his inaction, his encouragement of chaos in the education system and his mismanagement. Perhaps in the future he may wish to consult with members of the opposition party to help him arrive at a decision much sooner.

Mr. Allen: In response to the announcement of the Minister of Education with regard to the adult education grants he is now making, I appreciate very much that he has responded in terms of the principles we have tried to outline in the past two or three weeks that must guide any resolution of this problem. Therefore, I am happy that he has taken that high road, which will avoid the legal issue that was posed by the judgement given to the Metro public board, and that the solution will not promote duplication in the field but will make it possible for all boards to move without confessional or denominational tests with regard to their applicants for adult education.

I remind the minister, however, that he is just turning a small corner in adult education. I am sure he is aware of that. There are many unresolved issues out there that need to be tackled in this department of his responsibilities, and we have some ground to make up.

Perhaps the critic from the Conservative Party, who vented a great deal of noise on this issue, was trying to obscure the past with regard to the losses we made in 1983 and 1984 in the whole adult education field. I hope that, having got that out of his system, he will now adopt a more constructive approach and we can all work together to make adult education a fruitful and hopeful offering for the people across this province.

14:07

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. We are informed that he had a half-hour meeting with Goodyear yesterday. At that meeting, apparently by his own admission in the morning papers, his efforts failed. Given that, can the minister outline to the House today the profit and loss situation of the plant in Etobicoke so that the government and all of us can decide what the next appropriate step might be?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The report in the paper was inaccurate. The meeting was not for half an hour; it was closer to an hour and three quarters. It was not in the Mowat Block; it was in the Hearst Block.

The Leader of the Opposition had a question as to the profitability. This matter was raised on Monday. The profitability of the company in 1985 was low because of the strike it had in Valleyfield. This issue was raised with the company yesterday. We were told by company officials from both Canada and Akron, Ohio, that this plant has not been profitable.

Mr. Grossman: I remind the minister that my question did not relate to the profitability of the company, because no one is proposing that anyone buy the company; it was with regard to the plant.

The minister at the end of his answer indicated he was informed by the officials that this plant had not been profitable. After numerous calls to the union and other people, it is our information that the plant has recently become profitable.

Is the minister in the position this afternoon of saying that almost a week after the announced closing, after the extensive meetings he and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) have had, he still cannot report to the House definitively with regard to the profit and loss situation of that plant? Does he not have that information yet?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I stated, that question was asked of the company officials yesterday. They replied that the plant was not profitable. I asked whether they would provide the financial statement relating to that plant. They did not offer to do so, upon which I said to them that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had suggested they might be brought before the standing committee on public accounts and be asked for that information if they did not volunteer it.

Mr. Grossman: Over the years, many ministers have been faced with plant closures. In every instance I can recall, the companies have been willing to hand over the information with regard to the profit and loss statement of the plant. Is the minister in a position this afternoon to tell us that at the end of a meeting of an hour and three quarters, he and his staff were so ineffective that he could not even ascertain the profitability of a plant that is about to go under with 1,500 employees, so he could decide what course of action to take?

How is he going to proceed to defend those workers if he cannot even get the basic information from which to operate to plan his attack in the next few weeks? Is he just going to let the plant disappear without taking any further action?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: It is hard to see where the member stands as the Leader of the Opposition. He is a Leader of the Opposition who called for an emergency debate yesterday and was not even present for any of that debate. In fact, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) had to ask for a quorum call because the Conservatives had two members in the House. How interested is the Leader of the Opposition in the company?

If information on the profitability or nonprofitability of the company is not forthcoming, we will demand it. If it is not handed over, we will ask them to go before the public accounts committee to give it.

Mr. Grossman: The minister has not demanded it. He does not have it and he has no idea what to do to get it. His party wanted to debate sexual orientation instead of the Goodyear layoffs. That is where its priorities are.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. We understand -- and I trust this information is now in the minister's hands -- that in the case of Halton Centennial Manor, a home for the aged for which he is responsible, reports indicate that 320 residents are without private washrooms, that washrooms are often without doors, that there is great potential for cross-contamination between clean and soiled laundry and that there are numerous fire hazards.

Can the minister indicate what action his ministry has taken to resolve this potentially very dangerous situation affecting 320 of our senior citizens?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The Leader of the Opposition is well aware that the general practice in designing and building homes for the aged in this province was not to do so in such a way that the residents had private rooms or even semiprivate rooms. The member should also be aware of the fact that this ministry has launched a $75-million renovation program for existing homes for the aged around this province.

Recently, we had the opportunity officially to open Kipling Acres, where all the four- and six-bedroom units have been converted into one- and two-bedroom units, and even the two-bedroom units, each with its own washroom, have a dividing wall between them. We are in the process of going across Ontario and renovating the facilities that were part of our inheritance in this ministry. We will be moving into Halton Centennial Manor as well.

Mr. Grossman: Those are all laudable goals. However, they do not provide much help for 320 senior citizens who, as we speak here, are living in a home that has numerous fire hazards, by the admission of everyone who has looked at the building, and are in a situation where they are eating in the halls because the dining rooms are overcrowded. To make the situation that much worse, it is reported that in one of the buildings so much sewer gas is escaping from the basement that there is a foul odour throughout the building.

How long is the minister prepared to leave 320 senior citizens living in this dangerous and unacceptable situation? Is he going to fix it immediately and move the seniors or is he content to leave them in those circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: To the extent that there are specific emergency needs, they will be met. In fact, they are continuing to be met. I ask the honourable member what his priority list is. This ministry has a list of the homes for the aged across the province that are being renovated, and many of these are in the ridings of his members, who are well aware of that.

The second point I make is that each of our municipal homes has a board of management, which reports to the local municipal council and also works very closely with our program supervisors. The kinds of situations the member has described, particularly those that deal with fire hazards, are dealt with directly by the local municipality and the local board of management. That board of management has some responsibility in those areas and our ministry has some responsibilities. We work closely together.

Mr. Grossman: I point out that, as the auditor outlined yesterday, the minister cannot get away from the fact that the legislation makes him and his ministry responsible for conditions in those homes. Through the boards of management or whatever, he is the person responsible for the condition of those homes. If he is reporting to us that there are homes across Ontario that are higher on the priority list than this one, then he must be saying there are homes in even more serious situations and senior citizens facing even greater fire hazards and even more deplorable circumstances in terms of their washroom facilities than these. If so, can the minister tell us whether he agrees that this is indeed an emergency situation? Why will he not move immediately to resolve the situation for these 320 seniors?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member is probably aware that there are 184 homes for the aged across this province, 94 under the jurisdiction of municipalities and 90 under the jurisdiction of charitable boards of directors. Therefore, it is entirely possible there are others that have greater needs than those the member just described. It is my presumption that those are the basis of our priority list.

I am quite prepared to look at the individual circumstance the member describes and to have my staff take a look at it. I am quite prepared to suggest to the member that the local board of management is dealing with this situation as it deems possible. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that up until 1972, during the jurisdiction of the previous government, there were regular ministry inspections of homes for the aged. At that time, it was a decision taken by the previous government that the ministry should not conduct direct inspection but that it should be the responsibility of the boards of management, which were constituted and set up with the authority and the approval of that previous government.

Shortly after my becoming minister, my ministry launched an accountability review of all the agencies, including homes for the aged, to see precisely how that system was working out. Where changes are necessary, changes will be made. As my leader said, we are not wedded to the previous government's past.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Rae: The road to Damascus is beginning to look like the Don Valley Parkway at five o'clock.

My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I am rather astonished that the minister has not made a statement about Goodyear. I am also astonished that he has not made a statement to the House with respect to the question of softwood lumber exports and the so-called deal that was either worked out or not worked out at the first ministers' conference. The minister will know that time is running out with respect to the filing of an appeal and the formal filing of papers in the United States.

Is it the intention of this government, given all its protestations and statements and the flurry of rhetoric that we have heard over the past while, though not during the critical period when the 10 per cent was given away, to fight and fight and fight again, as was stated so often during the past week?

14:20

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I thank the member for the question. It is just too bad the leader of the third party could not have been out west to see what a great job the Premier (Mr. Peterson) did in fighting for this province.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Neither I nor the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) was invited to attend the conference.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: It is just too bad the leader of the third party was not there.

To reply to his question, yes, we will continue to pursue this in the interests of the industry here in Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: The minister has not made clear whether this province intends to file before the deadline at the end of this week.

As well, if there is to be a deal, as the federal government and the governments of British Columbia and Quebec are saying, does the minister know how the 15 per cent increase is to be made up? Will it be made up of increases in stumpage fees or of some kind of export charges or of a combination of the two? Can he answer those two questions?

Hon, Mr. O'Neil: First of all, we have engaged the firm of Hogan and Hartson in Washington through Blake Cassels and Graydon of Toronto, who will be representing us. They have filed notice with the Americans that we wish to receive all the information. They will be our agents there to represent Ontario.

With respect to discussing how the 15 per cent or 10 per cent or any percentage will be handled, we take it that we should be fighting it and that we should not give in to any agreement such as that.

Mr. Laughren: I do wish the minister had responded to my colleague's question.

The minister would know that just in the very recent past there have been layoffs at Searchmont, north of Sault Ste. Marie, and at Terrace Bay, and that last night there was an announcement of the shutdown of the largest sawmill in Ontario at Nairn Centre in my own constituency. The minister must surely understand that this could be just the beginning, because the United States industry has indicated it is not satisfied with the 15 per cent tariff; it wants 20 per cent or more.

Given that and given the fact that this could very well lead to a whole new era of shutdowns and layoffs in northern Ontario that would create two Ontarios even more starkly than now, one in the south and one in the north, can the minister tell us what plans he has to respond to this new crisis of unemployment in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I have mentioned on previous occasions, we are very concerned with any unemployment that happens. We have been trying to work very closely through our regional offices and through meetings that my staff and I and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) have had with those communities. We will continue to do what we can, but we feel we cannot give in to 15 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent or 30 per cent. We have to fight that issue and take it to the courts right through the system.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have questions for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I will pose to the minister three hypothetical circumstances that point out some of the irrational discrepancies in the social assistance system and then ask for his comments on them.

First, 14-year-old Sarah and 10-year-old Adam are currently living with foster parents, Mr. and Mrs. Black. The ministry's 1985 guidelines for foster care suggest that the Blacks should receive $535 a month to feed, clothe and look after Sarah and $440 a month for Adam.

Next week, Sarah is returning to live with her mother, a single parent on family benefits. His ministry will provide Sarah's mother with only $115 a month extra for the same purposes. Adam is returning to his parents, who have been on welfare since his father was in a car accident. They will receive less than $100 a month extra from welfare when Adam returns.

Given that foster care rate guidelines clearly indicate that those costs are only for the cost of the child, how can Sarah's and Adam's parents do the same job with 25 per cent of the money? What does the ministry think Adam and Sarah should do without when they go home?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware that the foster parent program is a very specific one, having a specific goal, which is to encourage other families to take into their homes children who are not their own. It also takes into consideration the fact that many of these children have specific needs that cannot be met in their own families. If they could, they would not have to go into a foster family.

When we look at the financial resources we provide to a foster family, we have to look at the fact that this is not their child. They are not directly responsible for this child. There are special needs above and beyond food and clothing, and they are making a contribution to society above and beyond that of a natural parent.

I am not suggesting the amounts we give to the natural parents are necessarily enough. That is one of the reasons we are having the review. However, there should be a clear distinction made between the role of a foster parent and the role of a natural parent and the responsibilities of each.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The record will show that the guidelines clearly indicate they are only for the cost of the child and not for other exceptional circumstances and certainly not to encourage people to become foster parents.

When the minister made his announcement about the new rates on November 4, he said, "Today's announcement demonstrates that we are not putting action on hold while we explore the possibilities of more fundamental change through the review process." I do not think this needs to wait either.

Here is another example. Daniel is a 66-year-old man. The provincial government guarantees that Daniel receive $727 a month through his guaranteed annual income system. Daniel's friend Joe is 59 years of age. He is blind, confined to a wheelchair and lives in Metro Toronto housing. The provincial government provides Joe with only $458. If he were living in a high-rent private apartment, he would get a maximum of $605 under family benefits. If one is on welfare, the figures would be $301 as a minimum and $458 as a maximum this coming January.

If Daniel is just managing to get by on his $727, how does the minister expect Joe to survive on $458 or $301? What does the Ministry of Community and Social Services expect Joe to do without? Both are unable to work. Why do they not have the same needs and the same money?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: On a number of occasions, and quite rightly so, the honourable member has drawn to our attention the difference between the support that is made available to a senior and that made available to a disabled person in our society. I understand from his question that this is the same distinction he is making again today.

I draw to his attention the fact that the higher amount made available to a senior is a federal allocation. The decision the federal government makes with respect to additional money to seniors is a decision it makes within its own realm. I certainly do not quarrel with it.

I have pointed out to the honourable member that while there is still a differential, we have at every opportunity closed the gap between the disabled and the aged. It is now considerably below what it was when we took over the government. I announced in my most recent rate increases that we are closing the gap further still. I recognize the problem; I accept the expression of the member's concern. We will continue to close that gap.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Let us deal with an area that is absolutely within the minister's jurisdiction, although I am surprised at the minister's wanting to recommend that the federal government should be more generous than himself.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The example is as follows: The father of Karen and Rachel injured his back on the job and is receiving total temporary benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board, which guarantees him 90 per cent of his net earnings. His family would receive about $1,540 a month if he was earning the average industrial wage when injured.

The father of Joann and Jim hurt his back at home. When his unemployment insurance ran out, he turned to welfare, which will provide the family of four with a maximum of $748, excluding shelter subsidy, and a maximum of $985 with the maximum shelter subsidy. Why does the provincial government discriminate according to where one is injured? Is the injury not as significant if it happened at home as it is if it happened on the job? Why do they not receive the same amounts?

14:30

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Once again, we are talking about two quite different programs. There has been considerable discussion -- and I recall when we were debating the changes to the workers' compensation legislation -- that there should be a single program to assist all people who are injured, whether at home or in the work place. That is still a valid observation and point for investigation.

At present, the workers' compensation program is funded entirely by the employers of Ontario, and the welfare program is funded entirely from the tax base of Ontario. The amount of money that comes from the welfare program is based upon a needs assessment, whereas the amount of money that comes from workers' compensation is based upon a percentage of income. The criteria are quite different, and one would not expect that the two end-result figures would be the same.

LAYOFFS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, otherwise known as the minister in charge of the deindustrialization of Ontario.

Mr. Fontaine: Big deal. Talk about the years you were there.

Mr. Pope: The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) did quite well out of Progressive Conservative governments.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the two members for Cochrane contain themselves. I remind all members that it is much better not to point across the floor but to direct their questions through the Speaker.

The member for Cochrane South with a question, please.

Mr. Pope: I hear you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology about layoffs in resource industries in this province. Once again we know of layoffs, this time at Ontario Paper Co. in Thorold, where 90 jobs have been lost in the sulphite pulping plant and another 230 jobs are potentially at risk.

Is the minister going to meet with the officials of that company and with the workers' representatives? When is he going to do that? What is he going to do to protect those workers and help them out?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: First of all, we are very concerned whenever there are losses. Ontario Paper Co. did announce that one year from now, there would possibly be a layoff of 90 people. The president of that company was kind enough to call me and some of the other members to discuss the matter. We will continue dialogue with him to see in which way we can help him.

Mr. Pope: The minister did not answer the question as to what he was going to do to help those workers. I find it rather ironic that the president of the company would have to call the minister. The minister does not take it upon himself to call any of the chief executive officers of these companies to try to deal with this situation.

We have checked a number of resource companies across northern Ontario that have announced layoffs, including those companies in the riding of Cochrane North. We have checked with a number of CEOs in these companies, and not one of them has been contacted by this minister or by any other minister of this government after layoffs have been announced.

Why does the minister have a double standard? Why is he so rightfully engaged in meeting with the representatives of Goodyear and with the workers' representatives at Goodyear in Toronto, and yet he does not give the CEOs and the workers in northern Ontario the time of day and of this government?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I believe the member for Cochrane South asked a similar question of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) yesterday, and he was given an excellent answer. This ministry and the Ministry of Natural Resources have been in touch with the people of the north. The member knows our offices throughout the north have been in constant touch with them. The minister, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and I have met with the industry officials. We are meeting with them this week and again next week.

Mr. Pope: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister has stood in his place and knowingly said something that we know is not factually correct. He has not met with a single senior --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: I want to pursue further this matter of the layoffs at the Ontario Paper Co. in Thorold. The minister indicated that the company is shutting down the sulphite operation in a year's time and that 90 people will be laid off. The facts are, and the minister ought to know them, that it is going to shut down the chemical operation unless it can sell that too, and the total number of people out of work will be 320.

Given that this company received $32 million in public funds five years ago, $21 million of that from the taxpayers of this province, and given that any prudent minister would follow closely the employment policy of the company, can the minister tell us when he first knew of this decision by the company and what input he has had with the company already?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I thank the member for the question. When the president talked with me yesterday or the day before yesterday, he did mention that he had also talked with the honourable member. Of course, the member has concerns, as we do.

With regard to the chemical plant, those layoffs are not definite in any way at all. There is a prospective buyer, and our ministry has been involved in looking for other prospective buyers. I hope a buyer can be found and those jobs will be saved.

Mr. Swart: It is preposterous that the minister did not know a decision was being made. The company announced a year ago that it was considering this shutdown, and the minister would not have been notified by now if I had not mentioned it to the president of that company when he called me on this issue.

By way of supplementary, I remind the minister that there is the probability of saving more than two thirds of those jobs if the sale of the chemical division to another paper mill goes through. Will the minister belatedly and with some determination and some resources, if those are necessary, now intervene to ensure that the deal goes through so those 225 jobs can be saved?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I mentioned, I would think the president would have had the courtesy to call not only the member opposite but also me and other people. I believe he called the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) too. I do not think the member is any more special than either the Minister of the Environment or me. He just cannot be.

As the member is aware, there is one prospective buyer. We hope there will be others with whom we will also be able to talk and give assistance, if possible.

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Can the minister explain why his government is prepared to haul the executive members of Goodyear before a committee of this Legislature for a Toronto layoff, and yet it is not prepared to haul in Bill James in Falconbridge, who will be laying off more than 500 men, with the attendant suffering to those workers and those families in Sudbury?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: That matter has been raised on a couple of occasions. Of course, we are very concerned about the loss of those jobs in Sudbury. We will be doing everything we can to find work for them and to see that they are given work.

14:40

Mr. Gordon: It is quite obvious that this government has a double set of standards. It has one set of standards for southern Ontario and vote-rich Metropolitan Toronto, and it has another set of standards for northern Ontario and the Sudbury region.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will wait until things settle down. I do not think anyone heard what was said. Can the member briefly repeat the question?

Mr. Gordon: Yes. My question was of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. There is a double standard where this government is concerned. It is saying the Toronto layoffs must be justified, but in the north it is due to world competition for resources. When is the minister going to start standing up for the people of northern Ontario, and in particular for the people in Sudbury, and bring them before a select committee of this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We have been standing up for the people of northern Ontario, and we will continue to do so.

I understand a meeting was called a couple of weeks ago that he, as the member for Sudbury, did not even turn up for. I also understand there was to be an arrangement where we would set up another meeting for him, but he did not take that up either.

We are very proud of the record in Ontario, with one of the lowest unemployment rates in all Canada. We will continue to work to see that same rate drops in northern Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Speaker: Under which standing order?

Mr. Gordon: The minister is dissembling when he says that. That is not the truth at all. Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I inform all members that we may take a recess to keep things toned down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I said we may. Order.

HOUSING FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Housing regarding the housing of the disabled. First, I would like to ask him about the home renewal program. Can he explain to the House why there has been no new money put into that program for the past three years? Can he explain why the maximum grant of $4,000 is available only to people who are making $6,000 a year?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I have told members the reason no new money was invested in the Ontario home renewal program in two years was that three years ago those moneys were in the municipalities and were not being used. What we have done is to go back to the municipalities, reactivate those moneys and say we must use them. If they are not going to use them, we will move those moneys around. There has been a tremendous amount of activity in the past year for money that was sitting in the municipalities. We have had great results from those new, reactivated programs.

On the member's second point, the minimum of $6,000 has been raised a couple of times. We have been looking at it.

Mr. Rae: I want to ask the minister a question about a constituent of mine who came to see me last night. Her name is Lorraine Cahoon. She has four children. Her 13-year-old daughter, whose name is Sharleen, has spina bifida. She has been in a wheelchair all her life.

The minister has a program for the private sector, which is very inadequate. Lorraine Cahoon and her family are in a four-bedroom townhouse in my constituency, and they cannot get a lift. The result is that every two or three hours Mrs. Cahoon has to carry her daughter up and down the stairs.

Can the minister explain how this situation can continue in Ontario in 1986? How does the government feel about this, given all its expressions about helping people with disabilities? How can he explain the complete blockage of any attempt to deal with this problem? We have been dealing with Mrs. Cahoon's problem for months, and we have had no solution. How can the minister justify that?

Hon. Mr. Curling: With respect to the government's approach towards the disabled, we have the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Ruprecht).

The honourable member gives the impression that nothing is done in our housing programs in the public sector. We have made provision for the disabled in our housing programs. I fully agree with the member that this is not enough to deal with the problems of the disabled. It is very unfortunate that the individual the member mentioned has to go through these steps over a long time to address that problem. We hope that within approximately two years we will be able to resolve all those problems. I know it is not fast enough, but we are addressing the problems the best way we can.

[Later]

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to correct the record with respect to a question I put to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling). I failed to mention an extremely relevant fact in my supplementary, that Mrs. Cahoon is living in Metropolitan Toronto Housing. She is a resident in public housing and is a recipient of family benefits. Having failed to mention those facts, I needed to do so to get my point across to the minister.

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Mr. Pope: I have a question of the minister of deindustrialization of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There is no such minister in the House.

Mr. Pope: He is the minister who just said to the House he is proud the unemployment rate in northern Ontario is 13 per cent, the same minister who said he is proud of his government's performance.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I did not say that. I said the unemployment rate in Ontario is 6.9 per cent, and we hope to lower the rate in northern Ontario. That is what I said.

Mr. Pope: The minister said he was proud of his government's efforts when we have unemployment rates of 15.5 per cent in Sault Ste. Marie, 10.6 per cent in Sudbury and in excess of 13 per cent across northern Ontario. The minister is proud of that; he said so two minutes ago.

Getting back to the question of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), I want to know why the minister has a double standard. Why will he meet with the Goodyear executives here in Toronto and say he is going to bring them before a committee of the Legislature, when he refuses to listen to the people of Sudbury and bring the Falconbridge executives before a committee of the Legislature? Why does the minister have a double standard?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We do not have a double standard. We are trying to correct some of the problems the member's party did not correct for 42 years. This province has never had more industrial development than it has had during the past year and a half. We are planning to do more things for the north and to give some of the industry to the north.

With regard to the member's question about meeting with people, we have met with them and we will continue to meet with them.

Mr. Pope: This minister is proud not only of the unemployment rate in northern Ontario but also of what is happening to the industries in northern Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pope: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I was waiting for it, but the member was giving a speech.

Mr. Pope: It is to the minister who is so proud of the state of the resource sector in northern Ontario. Why will he not have the officials of Falconbridge brought before a committee of this Legislature, the same kind of standard he has for Goodyear?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member sinks kind of low in some of his comments to this side of the House. Might I say that if he were here a little more often he might be able to fight for the north a little better.

14:50

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr. Pouliot: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I come to the minister this afternoon as a last resort. In the past month, there have been at least 10 fatalities on northern Highways 11 and 17. I have mentioned to the minister in the past that the degree of road maintenance this year has been either deplorable or, in most cases, nonexistent.

I ask him today specifically to take the responsibility of helping his ministry end the carnage that is taking place in the north. If the same situation were to happen in southern Ontario, there would be an association of concerned citizens suggesting that someone had blood on his hands. What specific steps is he willing to take to end the fatalities and the many accidents that have been occurring in the north?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I can assure the honourable member from the north that we take the safety of the travelling public just as seriously in northern Ontario as we do in southern Ontario. That is one of the reasons we recently rejected increasing the speed limits in northern Ontario. That had been petitioned for by one of his colleagues from the north.

I am aware of the statistics the member has presented me with. We are attempting to get the details of the nature of the fatalities. On the first go-around, road conditions had little to do with some of the fatalities, as I indicated to the member. Until I am able to conclude precisely the times of day, the road conditions and other circumstances in relation to any major accidents, and certainly to ones that resulted in fatalities, I will not attempt to respond to each of the 10 fatalities the member brought to my attention yesterday.

We will have that information and I will be only too pleased to give it to him. I assure him that the levels of maintenance standards in the north will not be compromised because it is the north. He will have the same standard of maintenance that we have in the south.

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister aware that as a result of the restraint program of the previous government, in real dollar terms the expenditure of his ministry in capital and in maintenance on northern roads has gone down for the past number of years? Is the minister aware that the patrols now are twice as long as they used to be and that maintenance is much less than it used to be? With regard to a major storm, his crews do not get out now until the storm is over. The travelling public is left to fend for itself unless the Ontario Provincial Police close the roads.

Is the minister prepared to make a commitment to this House that he will increase the funding for maintenance of roads across Ontario, particularly for the poorer roads we have in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: No one is more aware than I of the previous government's reduction in overall funding to this ministry. For 11 years it was diminished, as the member well knows, from a high percentage of the overall provincial budget to a low of some 5.6 per cent. The member is also aware that in the last two budgets brought in by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), the overall share of the budget to this ministry has increased by an average of seven per cent. We will direct as much of that money to highway safety and maintenance as we possibly can.

LAYOFFS AT ETHYL PLANT

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the very busy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Well over a year ago, I spoke to the minister and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in this House with respect to the imminent phase-out of tetraethyl lead at the ethyl facility in Sarnia. I indicated to him that jobs would be lost at the plant if the ministry did not take some action to assist with retraining programs or some form of capital assistance to keep the plant in operation.

Can the minister tell this House what his ministry has done during the course of the past year in connection with that plant'?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I will have to get an update on where that now stands and I will be very pleased to do that.

Mr. Brandt: I am pleased to give the minister an update right now. I understand that six weeks ago the Office of the Premier contacted the plant in anticipation of a question that might arise in the House. My understanding is that during the course of 12 months no official from the ministry has made any effort to save the 155 jobs at that plant. What kind of confidence can the Goodyear workers, or the workers in the north, have in the minister, if he has been given one year's notice and has not even picked up a telephone?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Again, I will check on it and get back to the member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton East would like your attention so he can ask a question.

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister may or may not be aware that the professional and administrative employees of Ontario Hydro -- 6,500 in number -- have applied for certification and status before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I warned this House a week ago in a statement during members' statements period that the rumours were that 1,500 exemptions or exclusions would be asked for by Ontario Hydro.

Is the minister aware that Ontario Hydro has now gone to the board and asked that 3,100 of these people -- half of the unit -- be excluded from any right to have organization? Can he tell us what is going on at Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I certainly am aware of what is happening at Ontario Hydro relative to the professional employees attempting to be taken into a union. I am also very much aware that Ontario Hydro has put before the labour relations board some of the people it feels should or should not be able to comply in order to participate in that union. In answer to the member's question, it is before the labour relations board, where it should very properly be. There will be a decision made in that forum.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am rather surprised the minister made that comment. I wonder whether he will listen carefully for a moment. For eight or nine years now, those employees -- all 6,500 of them -- have been covered under a voluntary contract, which already recognizes some 250 exclusions where Hydro has the authority to hire and fire. They went before the board and agreed to exclude another 600, which I probably would not have done. That is already there.

Just because they have asked for the added protection of the labour relations board and for certification, why does Ontario Hydro, which has a contract now with these people, now say, "What you had yesterday you cannot have tomorrow; 3,100 employees are not going to be included in that bargaining unit"? It is arrogance; it is a jackass position by that company.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member asked me whether I knew about the situation. I responded and told him that I did know about it. I knew what was happening and I knew it was before the labour relations board.

He must be perfectly aware that the under the Power Corporation Act this is going to have to be discussed and debated between the people who are applying and Ontario Hydro. I do not know why he expects me to be involved in this whole situation. I am absolutely certain he understands that Hydro is now bargaining with the people applying to be certified. I cannot understand why he would come to me with the question.

COURTHOUSE

Mr. Baetz: I have a question for the acting Minister of Government Services. Will the acting minister try to explain the incredible cop-out by his government in the bombshell announcement yesterday that instead of the long-awaited and promised 12 courtrooms to be used by the district and Ontario Supreme Court in the new Ottawa courthouse, we are now going to get only eight?

More specifically, will the minister tell us whom his ministry spokesperson Margie Lockhart consulted? What information led her to say, "It was my information they were not required right now. Adding funding for 12 courtrooms was never approved." She thereby contradicted an earlier announcement by the former minister, the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan)? Who is running the store over there?

15:00

Mr. Villeneuve: The store is closed down.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Never in Moose Creek. I say to my good friend the member for Ottawa West, whose question I welcome, that I will let our client, the Attorney General, defuse the bombshell, if nothing else.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I had the occasion to discuss this matter with the president of the Carleton County Law Association. The circumstances are, as the honourable member will know, that the new courthouse, which I think opens this week in Ottawa, has 27 courtrooms, including six jury courtrooms, to serve three courts.

We have indicated to the president of the Carleton County Law Association that there is no present evidence that there is the capacity to provide judges to serve additional courtrooms. We have asked the president of the county association and the local judges to monitor carefully the utilization of those 27 courtrooms, and if it can be demonstrated that 27 are not enough, the available space in the building will be committed to additional courtrooms at an early date.

Mr. Sterling: The Attorney General should know that before the new courthouse opened this week, seven courtrooms and many chambers of judges were used for district court and Supreme Court hearings. In addition, as I said, many of these trials are held in chambers. Replacing the seven plus courtrooms with eight courtrooms is not going to solve the problem of the backlog in these courts.

When I was a member of the government, I met regularly with the courthouse committee of the Carleton County Law Association to discuss issues such as this. I want to quote to the Attorney General the remarks of the president of the Carleton County Law Association as reported in the Ottawa Citizen: "Not only did the government not consult with us, no one in our association even knew a study was going on in October."

Why is the minister offering the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton a second-class justice system in a first-class building? Number two --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Houston will be here in Toronto tonight. Will the Attorney General meet with him?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked. Would the honourable member take his seat.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have met with Mr. Houston on a number of occasions and I am perfectly willing to meet with him -- he is a longtime personal friend -- at any opportunity. Last night when we talked on the telephone, he did not regard it as necessary. I will tell him the member thinks he and I should meet and see how he reacts to that.

Of course, the member has his facts wrong. There are not seven courtrooms; there are 27 courtrooms in this courthouse. The member reflects an earlier age when courtrooms were assigned to one division of the court or the other.

If there were eight Supreme Court courtrooms, those courtrooms could not be used by the provincial courts; and if there were 10 provincial courtrooms, they could not be used by the Supreme Court.

Those days, as the member will know from hearing the statement made about 10 days ago, are over. There are 27 courtrooms provided in the newest and finest facility in Canada in Ottawa. When those courtrooms are shown by utilization to be insufficient, there is space to provide more courtrooms, and we will do so. However, as I indicated in the statement, we do not intend to provide or finish courtroom spaces that are not demonstrated to be required.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Premier. In the standing committee on public accounts several weeks ago, we were going to discuss a 20-part motion as a result of the Provincial Auditor's investigation into the Industrial Accident Prevention Association. That 20-part motion called for, first, $31.7 million to be given to labour to look after the health and safety matters of workers in this province on behalf of labour, the funds to come from the Workers' Compensation Board. The second part called for the establishment of clinics so that workers could be tested before they died.

The Liberal members of that committee, along with the Conservatives, asked for a delay on voting on items 1 and 2 until we could draft a resolution that was acceptable to all. It now is the Liberal position that they are no longer prepared to support that motion, even though at that time they were prepared to support it. Can the Premier tell me what happened?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have no idea what happened.

Mr. Martel: Perhaps it is time the Premier found out what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) is all about. It is my understanding that the Minister of Labour pressured his colleagues not to support that motion, not to give funding to workers in this province equal to that which the accident prevention associations get and not to establish clinics where workers could be tested before they die, such as at Inco, Johns-Manville and Elliot Lake.

Is the Premier prepared to instruct his members to support that motion so we can get it through? They were prepared to support it until there was intervention by someone.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend has suggested a scenario to the House. I honestly do not know whether it is accurate or not. I am not familiar with the circumstances, but I will be happy to discuss them with the minister upon his return and with members of the committee. I am not familiar with the merits of the case one way or the other. I will get back to the member.

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Ward: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Recently, the minister announced a substantial increase in funding for post-secondary institutions in Ontario. Can he indicate to the members of this House when the formula will be available for each specific institution, so those institutions can appropriately plan their future requirements?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am glad my friend asked the question. I note that since the recent rally at the University of Toronto, the opposition has taken a singular disinterest in the area of post-secondary education. In answer to my friend's question, the matter of formula revision that will allocate the dramatic increase in funding is now before the Ontario Council on University Affairs. I expect the council to report to me within a month or two, and at that time the universities will know precisely how that increment in funding will be allocated, university by university.

DISTRIBUTION OF REPORT

Mr. Philip: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and I were fortunate enough to receive the Provincial Auditor's report because we happened to be on the standing committee on public accounts and were in the lockup. Unfortunately, my other colleagues and members of other parties in this House received this report in their mailboxes only this morning, and I understand some of them have not yet received it. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to look into the possibility that when a report is tabled in the House, it be distributed in the House to all members at the same time as it is tabled.

Mr. Mancini: On the same point, Mr. Speaker: Anyone who was interested in the auditor's report could have attended the lockup and picked up a copy of the report at that time.

Mr. Speaker: I will respond to that point. I received a letter from the Provincial Auditor stating that the report would be placed in all the members' boxes 10 minutes prior to the opening of the House. I will check into it.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, permit me to bring to your attention and to the attention of the House the presence of Sheldon Chumir, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, who is sitting in the gallery.

15:10

PETITIONS

EQUALITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Mr. Hennessy: I have two petitions. One is from the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) and reads as follows, "We, the undersigned, are against Bill 7." It is from Fort Frances.

The second petition reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Liberal government to remove from Bill 7 the amendment that was passed on May 6, 1986, which includes "sexual orientation" in the Ontario Human Rights Code, for the following reasons:

"1. The legislation could affect the traditional rights of religious groups to hire only those staff members whose lifestyle is faithful to the beliefs and practices of the religious community.

"2. Agencies such as those that provide services and companionship to the children of single parents and others in need of care could lose their right to set their own standards of conduct for volunteers and employees.

"3. Schools, day care centres or group homes could be forced to employ those whose code of conduct and sexual orientation is incompatible with the established purposes and guidelines of the institutions."

The petition is signed by 50 people.

Mr. McLean: l have a petition signed by more than 100 people, which reads:

"A number of citizens of the Orillia area are concerned about the insertion of the term `sexual orientation' into Bill 7 in the Ontario Human Rights Code.

"The insertion of this term greatly offends many citizens in our area, as it takes the right away from us to oppose or object to certain lifestyles which, according to God's word, are wrong.

"We, the undersigned, lodge a protest with you at this time. We trust that you will intervene in this matter now."

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: I have two petitions to present. Both were gathered from members of the public at the Hamilton Women's World. The first reads:

"Child care petition. We, the undersigned, note that you have still not lived up to your promise to `reform day care policy and funding to recognize child care as a basic public service and not a form of welfare.' We urge you to take immediate steps to fulfil this promise and ensure that good child care is accessible and affordable for all who require it."

The petition is signed by 253 members of the public in Hamilton.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Ms. Gigantes: The second petition reads: "Equal pay petition. We, the undersigned, note that you promised in the NDP-Liberal accord to `introduce legislation for equal pay for work of equal value in both the public and the private sector.' We would like you to live up to your promise and ensure that all women in Ontario are paid the same as men for work that is of equal value."

The petition is signed by 579 members of the Hamilton public.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CANADIAN INSURANCE EXCHANGE ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 158, An Act to continue the Canadian Insurance Exchange.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is my pleasure to introduce for first reading the Canadian Insurance Exchange Act, which enables the operation of the exchange as a market facility for the placing of insurance and reinsurance risks.

This special act also provides the exchange with powers of self-government similar to those given to the Toronto Stock Exchange, while the superintendent of insurance retains residual licensing, examination and regulatory powers. In addition, the act provides for the creation of a security fund to be available to policyholders in the event of syndicate insolvencies.

As a predominantly Canadian facility, the Canadian Insurance Exchange will develop as a strong focal point for the domestic insurance market. It will be aware of Canadian conditions and responsive to Canadian insurance needs, but will also operate in an international marketplace.

This government believes the Canadian Insurance Exchange represents an important opportunity to retain in Canada a larger portion of reinsurance premiums for Canadian risks. It will expand the capacity and availability of direct insurance to Canadians and attract international insurance business.

In its report, the Ontario task force on insurance recommended that the Canadian Insurance Exchange be established in time to take advantage of the reinsurance treaty renewal period starting January 1, 1987. I urge members to bear this in mind during their deliberations of the act.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 159, An Act to amend the Insurance Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is my pleasure to introduce amendments to the Insurance Act which will give Ontario farm mutual insurance companies the same investment powers as other insurance companies and permit farm mutuals to form wholly owned subsidiary, joint stock general insurance companies.

As widely held, Ontario-based insurance companies, farm mutuals have demonstrated a considerable commitment to providing insurance in Ontario, even in periods of poor underwriting profitability. We want to further encourage that commitment.

The amendments I am introducing today are intended to facilitate the expansion of capacity of the farm mutuals and thereby increase the availability of insurance to Ontario consumers, particularly in rural areas.

These amendments have the support of the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association and of both the Dupré task force on financial institutions and the Slater task force on insurance.

At this time, I am also recommending that the Insurance Act be amended by deleting specific authorization for Ontario insurance companies to invest in instruments of or guaranteed by the government of South Africa.

As well, today's amendments include provision for insurance companies to own a percentage interest in a securities dealer, consistent with our new policies relating to the securities industry.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

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.

Mr. Chairman: When we broke yesterday, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel had the floor.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to continue in this debate, expressing my very strong opposition to the proposed amendment to Bill 7 on the issue of sexual orientation.

This morning I talked to my assistant in my Mount Forest constituency office. For the benefit of some of the members who are not knowledgeable about rural Ontario, Mount Forest is a small town about 100 miles northwest of Toronto, in Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. It is in the heartland of rural Ontario, a small town of 3,500 population. In that small town we have several active churches and some very fine people. Mount Forest is typical of the 21 municipalities I have the honour to represent.

15:20

My assistant informed me this morning that he had received numerous calls yesterday asking about the outcome of Bill 7. "Had the vote occurred? How did it go?" We do not have the luxury of cable television showing all these wonderful debates that occur in this chamber, but my constituents are concerned about the debate and want to know when the vote is going to occur and how it is going to come out.

As I said yesterday, they are totally opposed to the passage of this section dealing with sexual orientation. Not a single caller expressed support for this amendment. I should update that. I received a telegram just an hour before I came into the House, and I do have two people who indicated support for it. I have one family who supports the amendment.

This morning when I was in my office I received at least a dozen calls. Two, I think, were opposed to my stand and the rest very supportive. One lady from Scarborough East, the riding of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), said she was very pleased with my stand on Bill 7, applauded the things I was saying in the House and wished her member would say the same things.

I want to ask our new Liberal government where they stand on this issue. Yesterday, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) made a very emotional speech imploring the members of this assembly to support this amendment. The only other Liberal members speaking yesterday, the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) and the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), both declined to speak in support of the Attorney General on a government bill and, indeed, spoke against it.

The member for Grey gave many reasons for which he was opposed to it. I pose this question: having recorded his opposition to it, is the member going to have the courage of his convictions, stand in the House and vote against the amendment, or is he going to flee the chamber and abstain from voting, in essence having it both ways?

Quite clearly, the Liberal members cannot have it both ways. They should not tell their constituents they are opposed to this legislation and then abstain from voting. If they do, they know the amendment will carry, and their absence will have contributed to its passage just as much as if they had voted for this bill.

I predict this vote will be very close, and the absence of a dozen Liberals will ensure that the amendment they say they are opposed to will then become the law of this land. If that does happen, then those members must accept that they also contributed to its passage and answer to their constituents and explain why they failed to honour their commitment to support their legitimate opposition to this section of Bill 7. I say to my four Liberal colleagues who are in the House that abstaining from voting on this amendment is the same as voting for it.

Now that I have helped the Liberal whip shake up that bunch of misguided individuals, I would like to take issue with my friend and constituent from Erin, the Attorney General.

Let the record show that there are only three Liberals in attendance now.

The Attorney General suggested the church and state should be separate, and he used former President John Kennedy as an example. Like most things in life, this is too simplistic. Very seldom is any issue all white or all black, and most often things fall into grey areas. This is one of those issues that fall into that grey area. Very seldom have we as members of this Legislature had to debate a more sensitive, emotional and moral issue. This amendment to Bill 7 and the sexual orientation clause have created a great deal of controversy for all members. If the churches of this province do not speak out on this issue, then they should never speak out on any issue.

Mr. Chairman: There is a stranger in the House. Perhaps under the gallery would be better. Thank you.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: It is a young Progressive Conservative on the way up.

As I was saying before we had the very pleasant interruption, the churches of this province have a responsibility at this time to speak on this important issue, which certainly should concern them.

In the riding I have the honour to represent, Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, there are more than 100 churches; I cannot keep track of the number. There are 21 municipalities, and almost all of them have seven, eight or nine churches in each. Not all the churches contacted me, but not a single representative of a single church supported this amendment.

If our churches do not uphold the moral values of our society, who will? They should and must take the lead in maintaining the social and moral values we all should cherish, values we inherited from our forefathers, values we have an obligation to protect and enhance so that we may pass them on intact to our children and our grandchildren. The churches in Wellington-Dufferin-Peel have responded to this challenge, and I congratulate them for their involvement. I hope they will always give me their guidance on issues of this nature.

It would not be honest of me to imply that all churches are opposed to this legislation. Some churches are split on this issue. My church, the United Church of Canada, happens to be one of them. I would like to read into the record a couple of comments from the Toronto Star of Tuesday, November 25.

"Last week, at its twice-a-year meeting, the United Church general council executive approved a resolution calling for every effort to `extend the protection of the law to homosexual people' and asked church members to support such a call. All but one of the estimated 50 voting executive members, made up of lay and ordained people from across Canada, endorsed the resolution."

This bothered me. It does not reflect my feelings as a member of the United Church. I spoke to my minister last Friday. I asked him if he thought it represented the views of the church we both attend. He said that in his opinion it did not. He thought the vast majority of the people who attend our church, and most of the United Churches, do not support the resolution of the executive council.

I have been a member of the United Church for more than half a century, and I do not recall ever being asked a question pertaining to my feelings regarding issues such as this. I am not sure where the executive council obtained its ideas, supposedly speaking on behalf of the people it should represent.

To go on with my thoughts that the church is not united on this very important issue, I would like to continue to quote from the same article. Its headline reads: "United Church Group Opposes Homosexuals' Rights Law."

"A United Church evangelical group, bucking the church's official stand, says it opposes proposed legislation that would provide protection for homosexuals. A spokesman for the United Church Renewal Fellowship group yesterday said the fellowship endorsed a motion calling for `rigorous' opposition to the legislation at a rally in Guelph over the weekend. The group's executive director, Reverend John Tweedie, said the proposed legislation has far-reaching implications for the church, especially over the question of the ordination of homosexuals."

I have six grandchildren. I want to leave them with a legacy of a grandfather who tried to defend and enhance the moral standards of a province that I have had the honour to serve for almost a dozen years. Therefore, I would like to conclude my remarks with a brief summation of my personal concerns about this amendment.

It is my personal belief that to include sexual orientation in the Human Rights Code would change the definition of the family as it is currently understood in Ontario. It would provide a functional definition that does not require heterosexuality as its foundation and would recognize homosexuality as a legitimate alternative lifestyle on a basis equal to that of the traditional family.

15:30

The Charter of Rights states that everyone has a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, sex, religion, age, etc. It refers to discrimination on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation. Sexual orientation refers to an optional lifestyle whereas sex refers to the inherited characteristics of being male or female.

What are the implications of the passage of this amendment into law? Would it mean the legalization of homosexual marriages? Would it permit homosexual couples to adopt children? If not today, what about in the near future? Because there seems to be no definitive answers to these questions, it is my opinion that this amendment will not advance the cause of human rights and serve the common good of all Canadians but rather will pose a danger to the fabric of our society and create a climate in which the law of the land is perceived to condone, approve and promote homosexual behaviour.

In conclusion, I would like to quote Thomas Henry Huxley's comment on rightness, "It is not who is right but what is right that is of importance." That is the issue we have before us today. It is my hope that the members of this assembly will vote for what is right.

Mr. Gregory: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman: The subject we are dealing with, Bill 7 and the amendments to section 18, is very important. If some of the caucus members from the Liberal Party cannot be here -- only three of them are -- at least the minister who is carrying the bill could be here.

Mr. Chairman: Order. That is not an appropriate point of privilege.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Overwhelmed as I am about my ability to draw a crowd, I welcome all the members of the House and those Conservatives who are now leaving as I rise. It is not unusual for the House not to have many members in it, and I presume that with the new technology, members are crowded around their TV screens in their offices, listening to my every word. This is of course very reassuring.

I stand to speak in favour of the proposed amendment, as will all the speakers from the New Democratic Party. I hope the kind of contribution I make may be in speaking to the need for tolerance and the need for honesty in confronting fear and ignorance and that I will not get too confrontational, as is often my style, around this issue.

I was not able to be here for all the debate yesterday, but I read it all twice. It was a cruel and unusual form of punishment, but I felt I needed that before I came in. Two of the speeches were excellent. Others were not of that quality. I find it strange that one goes from being a rookie here to being, all of a sudden, a veteran. When one can speak of past committees having dealt with the same subject and when one has been a member of those committees, one is suddenly a veteran.

I was reminded in reading the debate this time that very little seems to have taken place since 1981 in terms of the education of certain members about this issue. Perhaps I will try to be lighthearted about this. I will tell a story around our hearings in 1981, about the inclusion of sexual orientation, when Mr. Renwick, then the member for Riverdale, and myself were on the committee hearing evidence, as were a number of members who still sit in this House.

A young gay male came in to make a presentation one day and caught everybody's attention by doing the following. He said: "Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am blue-eyed. About one person out of every 10 has blue eyes. How many members of the committee have blue eyes?" One or two members put up their hands. I cannot remember who at this point. He said: "I am also left-handed. Only about one in 10 of our population is left-handed. How many of you are left-handed?" A couple of members showed they were left-handed. He then said: "I am gay. About one of 10 people is gay and more than one out of 10 people on this committee are gay." One honourable member was heard to say, "That is not me." And neither was it. But there were other members on the committee who perhaps did not feel quite so comfortable about that statement.

I raise that to talk about the reaction of the member. I think that has been the reaction of many people in the community who believe that homosexuality is somehow infectious and that heterosexuals might somehow be undermined, especially the young vulnerable youth in our population, by recognizing protection for employment and housing rights of people of this inclination. It is not the case. We do not have to concerned about that. We do not have to be worried about loss of our sexual identity. I hope the members of the House understand that.

Let me start my comments by praising the speeches yesterday -- I am glad the Attorney General is arriving -- by the Attorney General yesterday and by our critic the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes). They were two of the most thoughtful statements on this that I have heard in some time. I am glad the member for Ottawa Centre has been able to arrive at this point as well.

I thought what they did so well was to get away from the kind of discussion we have heard from other members about reactions in letters, talking about how this will disrupt Big Brothers and various churches and organizations and how it will lead to adoption of children by gay people. It dealt with what the legislation is about and what specifically these amendments are about. If the members would concentrate on what this legislation says, on what the amendments and the present act together indicate, they would have much less concern and fear as to what this is all about.

Both those members did this House honour when they made their speeches. I think those members who only quoted from letters that had a total misunderstanding of what this legislation is about and did not say they tried to correct that misapprehension by their voters have been irresponsible in this House.

I will not be changing people's minds today. I am clear about that, no matter how many people are gathered around their television sets in the offices watching us. People's minds seem to be fairly set. As the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) was saying, the vote seems to be fairly close at this point.

However, I do want to talk a bit about the facts because I have a feeling we are going to have more quotations from letters ad infinitum, without addressing the facts of what is involved in this bill. First, the point made by the Attorney General is very important. It is not against the law of Canada to be homosexual and has not been for a long time now. The whole notion that the state has no right in the privacy of our bedrooms is something that has been established for quite some time. Certain kinds of behaviour are unacceptable and are governed by our legal code, which has supremacy over human rights codes. It is important to reaffirm this time and time again for those people who feel that by changing our Human Rights Code we are somehow going to affect the legal status of homosexuality in our country and province.

15:40

I think the large majority of people in this country agree that it should not be a crime to a have a sexual orientation that is different from heterosexuality. If we were all honest in this House about our sexuality, we would agree that we do not know what the sexuality is of the person in the seat next to us. We probably do not want to know the details of his sexual preference or his enjoyment of sexuality. We probably would not want members of the House to know the details of our own inclinations, of what we think are the parameters of acceptable sexuality in today's society.

That is what the passage of that law was all about in the 1960s. It was to guarantee us as adults all the rights and privileges to express ourselves sexually in the privacy of our homes, as we chose. The amendments to the Human Rights Code have to do only with whether or not there should be discrimination against people who are homosexuals in terms of their employment and their housing, etc.

Even with the definition, we have clause 23(a) of the Human Rights Code, which should be a great source of comfort to all those people who are concerned about any abuse of what this could do and what this could mean. Although the member for Ottawa Centre read this into the record, I want to do it again. I do not think many members of the House were honest with their constituents when they called about what protections are already in this act, about all the forms of discrimination which are prohibited under the section we are now amending in Ontario, whether it be on the basis of sex, race, creed, etc.

Section 23 states that these rights are "not enfringed where,

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

That is the protection for Big Brothers. That is the protection for the hiring of people within church organizations which may be fundamentally opposed to the acceptability of an expression of this sexual orientation in our society. It is clear that it is there as a protection. As the member for Ottawa Centre has said, for groups such as Boy Scouts and Big Brothers that use a lot of volunteers, this act does not apply to volunteers. The capacity to discriminate, on whatever grounds one wants, in choosing volunteers is out there and available to any group in society at this point. This will not change that. This will not allow the undermining of the morals of Boy Scout troops today any more than it did yesterday.

That brings us to the question about what the law is. This has nothing to do with the acceptance of paedophilia, bestiality or any other kind of act prohibited by our Criminal Code. That remains prohibited. That remains a charge for which we will expect our law officers and courts to pursue the perpetrator, because that is the law of the nation. This will not change that. Tomorrow morning, if we pass this and it becomes law, having got the words "sexual orientation" added to these sections, we will not have increased or decreased the protection against paedophilia one iota in this province. That protection exists under the Criminal Code of Canada.

What we are talking about is whether people of a different sexual orientation from heterosexual should be discriminated against in employment. Should it be grounds for firing somebody? I ask members of this House to think very seriously about that and about the people they know who are gay. I doubt there are many members of this House who do not have friends and associates who have come out of the closet to one degree or another over the past number of years. I count a lot of my friends among people who have gone through that tough experience. I know there are people who have been speaking in this debate who have friends and relatives in that position, well-respected members of our community making great contributions to our society, who at this point in our system can be discriminated against and can be fired if somebody chooses to complain and use the reason of their homosexuality against them.

I ask this because it is the fundamental question for members here. Do members think their jobs as members of the Legislature could be filled by homosexuals? The answer surely has to be yes, and that these positions have been filled by homosexuals, perhaps not in one member's seat but in others, by many people over the generations, who have served their country well.

If a member believes that and that perhaps caucus mates of his or hers are good contributors to the process in Ontario, he or she cannot possibly vote against this series of amendments, because that is the kind of protection we are giving. We are not undermining organizations that have to be as careful as possible about screening their employees for various reasons that are important to them in terms of their mandates. We are talking about the general right to employment and the general right to housing.

I will not go into the other protections in housing. The member for Ottawa Centre has already done that in terms of homes, parts of which are being let out, and the total control in terms of discrimination which exists for the owners of those homes. I will say only that it is not an issue on which members are going to win votes, and it is true they will get letters and phone calls harassing them.

Speaking as a veteran from this side of things, as someone who has been speaking on this issue since I was elected in 1979, members can survive it. They have to vote for what is right and correct. If they understand the limitations on this, I cannot understand how anyone could vote against it in the House.

In 1981, during that very tough election for some of us, on what we called Black Friday in my committee rooms, a member of an organization called Positive Parents sent around a piece of literature to about 7,000 households in my riding. It had a number of stories about paedophilia, child molestation and politicians' involvement with that. It had my picture in the centre of it, with no explanation of whether these stories were about me or anybody else but with a direct implication I was involved.

He did this because I had spoken out on this issue in 1981. During the leadership campaign for the New Democratic Party in which I was involved, he even sent leaflets to all the delegates in the hotel to let them know the same kind of thing, that I was in favour of child molestation because of my position on the inclusion of sexual orientation.

I survived that, and the members will survive that. It is not something that will destroy their political careers. They do not have to be afraid of that. Their responsibility as legislators is to look at these sections of the act, to see what they mean and what the controls on them are and to decide whether they are just. I believe any member who thinks about these things seriously and looks at them in legislative terms will understand that he or she has no alternative in logic but to support these amendments. I encourage all members to do so.

15:50

Mr. Baetz: I am pleased to speak to this issue of sexual orientation in section 18 of Bill 7. In doing so, for the sake of brevity, I will address only one aspect of the issue, that of the political process or political decision-making in our parliamentary system of representative democracy.

I know much of what I will be saying here is old hat to most of us, but in situations like this it may behoove us to reflect, however briefly, on the democratic process and how decisions are made in a representative democracy. Within this context, I want first to underline the word "representative." All 125 of us are here as duly elected representatives of our constituents, and it is our constituents, the people of Ontario, who are our ultimate bosses and the chief source of our authority. As the elected representative of Ottawa West, I am aware of the restraints and restrictions placed upon me.

For example, I cannot always march in lockstep with the wishes of every sector of the population in Ottawa West. There may be a whole range of views on many issues, some totally incompatible with others. In such cases, I must be selective and exercise my best judgement in making a choice of which group to represent. My constituents expect me to do that and to do it without compromising my role as their elected representative at Queen's Park.

There will also be rare occasions when in the best general interests of the people of Ontario, I will follow my own sense of judgement, even when I know it is contrary to the wishes of the majority in Ottawa West. However, let me stress immediately that I believe this should be a rare exception indeed, because I have a very strong conviction about the collective wisdom of the majority of our population.

All too often I sense among elected representatives, especially when we deal with an emotion-laden issue such as sexual orientation, a feeling of benign paternalism or enlightened maternalism. It is an attitude that says we should protect the people from themselves, from their own follies, bigotries and biases. If ever in history that was a valid point of view, it is certainly much less so today. The electorate today is more literate, far better educated and far more informed than ever before in history. More than ever, we ignore at our peril the collective wisdom of the people.

Finally, I believe even though minority rights must be respected and enshrined in our laws, the rule of the majority remains the cornerstone of our democracy.

It is with this background that I have approached the matter of sexual orientation that is before us in Bill 7. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of the people in Ottawa West who have given the subject any thought at all and who have contacted me have made it clear that they do not want to have sexual orientation included in Bill 7. I am convinced they do not simply represent one or two vocal and shrill special-interest groups or bigots who are skilled in the art of political advocacy. Rather, I am convinced they represent a very substantial cross-section of the population of Ottawa West whose opinions and value system I, as their elected representative, respect.

This fact alone is and must be of enormous significance to me when I stand here and claim to serve the people of Ottawa West as their representative at Queen's Park. I realize much of the concern and fear expressed by opponents of the amendment is a fear of the unknown, a fear of serious implications that could result from including sexual orientation in Bill 7. This fear of the unknown is heightened because it threatens basic human values, mores, religious beliefs and beliefs of what family life should be and the social wellbeing of their children. Friends, these are not peripheral issues. They impinge upon things that are considered to be of paramount importance to individuals and families. The fear among citizens of the unknown implications of this amendment, I believe, has been exacerbated because there has been far too little meaningful public discussion and examination of this issue.

As we know, the sexual orientation amendment was a private member's tag-on to the draft legislation. One could argue the pros and cons ad infinitum of whether these perceptions and fears are well founded or are only imaginary, but the fact remains that a very large, thoughtful segment of the population of Ontario is opposed to this amendment, certainly at this time, and as an elected representative I have to take that position very seriously.

My only continuing concern would be whether minority rights would be seriously infringed upon if this amendment were defeated and the civil, legal and human rights of those individuals who voluntarily chose the lifestyle of the gay community were violated. That is a concern for me. However, I do not believe they are violated. Surely if those individual rights were being violated, the framers of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would have clearly, explicitly, immediately and without equivocation included the necessary protective measures in the charter. But they deliberately, and not by some fluke or oversight, left these out, preferring to have the courts deal with this matter. In view of this, and keeping in mind that the essential purpose of Bill 7 was to make Ontario's legislation consistent with federal law and charter, it is clearly premature to include the sexual orientation amendment in this bill.

I am sure the Attorney General will agree that good laws build strong and integrated societies. Good laws enhance the spirit of interdependence of all groups. Good laws enhance the spirit of tolerance within a society, including the lifestyles of groups that do not have the same social and philosophical values as does the majority.

However, I believe that ill-conceived, hastily and arbitrarily introduced laws, forced upon an anxious, threatened and deeply concerned majority, provide the exact opposite results as good laws. Instead of integrating society, these hasty measures disintegrate society. Instead of building a spirit of community, they divide and generate a spirit of bitter divisiveness. Indeed, the supreme irony is that these laws, hastily introduced, could very easily isolate and adversely affect the very minority groups they were intended to protect. That is exactly what I fear this amendment to Bill 7 will do, and it is why I am strongly opposed to and will be voting against this amendment.

I know the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Attorney General, supported by their friends in the accord, are determined that this amendment will carry in spite of widespread public opposition to it. They might feel their determination is based on what I described earlier as a sort of benign paternalism. In fact, I feel it is built on a spirit of intellectual arrogance, a feeling of contempt for the people. It is a conviction that the leaders, and they alone, know what is best for the people. So much for open government, a government that the Premier likes to boast is always ready to listen.

My appeal to the government and to others who are ready to support this amendment is that we not support it now, and I ask that they do so in the best interests of the majority and of the gay community.

16:00

Mr. Runciman: I want to take a few minutes to outline my concerns regarding the government's efforts to sneak in sexual orientation legislation without any public consultation.

In 1981, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended extensively, and at that time there was lobbying for a sexual orientation provision in the code. That effort was overwhelmingly rejected after more than 150 submissions were made in a public forum. Now, five years later, not one public submission has been accepted.

I suggest that all members should be concerned about the undemocratic way this significant issue has been dealt with. It is especially ironic, as my colleague was saying, since we are dealing with a government that purports to be open and consultative but in reality will use any back-door method available to it to achieve its ends.

The Attorney General has stressed how important this amendment is, yet he is prohibiting those opposed to it from having their say. It is shoddy stuff, and it is going to catch up with him. What about the Premier? Why does he not live up to his commitment to operate a more open, no-walls government, by inviting public debate to address the proposed legislation?

This amendment is controversial and sensitive. The lack of public input has justifiably raised a great many concerns among a variety of individuals and groups in Ontario society. I want to review a few of those concerns.

Most important, this bill lacks a clear definition of just what is meant by sexual orientation. Does that mean the province at some point will be recognizing homosexual marriages as legal unions? Will this legislation indirectly result in homosexual couples having the right to adopt children? Those are two serious questions that must be answered.

In my view, the amendment in its present form suggests that we disregard our traditional family values. The family unit, as we know it, faces jeopardy should this become law. The amendment lacks clear definition of what is meant by sexual orientation. Does the legislation protect the rights of sexual orientations other than heterosexuality and homosexuality? These are questions that cannot go unanswered.

We have had some reference by the Attorney General to other members of the third party, who have assured us those kinds of things are not going to occur. However, the Attorney General was putting some matters on the record yesterday in quoting from publications, and I think it is only fair that some of us do something comparable on this side of the House.

We all received a little publication called Are Gay Rights Right? from the Free Presbyterian Church. I was not aware of the Free Presbyterian Church. I am a Presbyterian, but I had not heard of that church. Apparently, it is a very small group. However, I recommend its publication to the Attorney General. It makes for good reading. They talk about some of the concerns he was trying to address yesterday, but they look at them from the other side of the fence in some of the jurisdictions that have had gay rights legislation on their books.

I would like to read a bit of that into the record. They are talking about Minnesota, where a gentleman presented himself to the Big Brothers organization. We have heard many references to Big Brothers, which is an organization that attempts to introduce fatherless boys to men who would make exemplary role models for them. Given the increasing number of single-parent families, Big Brothers organizations throughout the country have experienced an expanding list of mothers who request Big Brothers as temporary fathers for fatherless boys; men to take their sons fishing, camping, hiking and to outdoor recreational activities that the mother cannot provide. "This applicant was eager to become a Big Brother. While reviewing his résumé during the interview, the Big Brothers representative noticed several items that suggested homosexual affiliations. He asked the applicant whether he was a homosexual, and the man admitted he was. Despite this revelation, the interview was not terminated.

"The interviewer mentioned that Big Brothers had a policy of revealing all facts they knew about potential Big Brothers to the mothers of their clients. Clients had the last word on the suitability of any applicant. If any of the facts were worrisome to a mother, she could decide not to have the man as a Big Brother. If none of the facts were objectionable, she could accept the proposed Big Brother for her son. It would work the same way with this revelation, the interviewer pointed out. If the mother had no objections to his homosexuality, he would be a Big Brother. It was her right either way.

"You might think that is a liberal policy, but it was not enough for the man who wanted to be a Big Brother. He immediately sued under the Minneapolis gay rights ordinance, alleging he had been discriminated against as a homosexual. The mere fact that his homosexuality was made known to the mother, he argued, would likely lead to his disqualification as a Big Brother. He was thus being discriminated against for this affectional preference.

"Big Brothers argued that there was nothing discriminatory about this policy. It made no comments, negative or positive about him. Its representative simply revealed all the facts, just as he would with other protected classes in the human rights law -- race, colour, age, religion, sex, marital status and the like -- and the decision was left to the mother.

"Despite the fair-sounding rationale of Big Brothers, the human rights officer found Big Brothers guilty of discrimination under the ordinance. He imposed costs on the organization of more than $6,000 and required Big Brothers to accept the homosexual as part of the organization without disclosing his homosexual preference to mothers of the sons who might go off on weekend outings with him."

Here is another example from approximately the same time this took place in 1977:

"Father Buchanan, a Roman Catholic priest in St. Paul, was interviewing candidates for a position at Holy Childhood School. The position was music teacher for the eighth grade. A candidate listed past school employment in music and on the face of his résumé seemed qualified. The priest's suspicions were raised, however, when the man insisted he wanted to teach boys. Further research revealed that the man was a homosexual. The decision seemed easy for the priest. His religious convictions and prudence dictated that he not permit a homosexual on the faculty.

"Again, the candidate sued, this time under the St. Paul gay rights ordinance, which was identical to the one in Minneapolis. The human rights agency made a preliminary determination of discrimination, and the file was turned over to the city attorney for prosecution with possible sanctions, including a 90-day jail sentence and a $300 fine. Ultimately, the St. Paul voters overwhelmingly repealed the gay rights ordinance.

"The two cases above reflect a harsh reality about legal solutions to political problems. They are always universally coercive. They may start innocently with theoretical discussions of liberty and equality and end, as in the case of the French Revolution, with the guillotine. The principle put into practice leads to an inevitable development of case-by-case resolutions that ends with a priest behind bars or a charitable organization wondering whether it ought to close its doors.

"This is not to say that no laws should exist. Some issues are so important to the social and political fabric of the country that society tolerates the accompanying coercion. Society is willing to coerce people into keeping their fists off other people's noses and their fingers off other people's wallets. Before society exercises its coercive power to override bona fide religious convictions and historic rights such as the right of a parent to exercise discretion in overseeing the moral character of those who come into contact with his or her child, there had better be substantial justification."

Unlike the Attorney General, who quoted Mario Cuomo -- and when you have to quote Mario Cuomo as justification for your position, you are in a lot of trouble -- this book quotes Abraham Lincoln, who is a much more respected figure than Mario Cuomo can ever hope to be: "What I call liberty is allowing people the maximum freedom in the things they own and the things they do, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others to do the same."

I will quote another section of this: "Are gay rights laws desirable? Even if such laws were arguably needed from a homosexual standpoint, it would still be undesirable for society as a whole, for a number of reasons." I will give only one or two of those reasons.

16:10

"They are inappropriate additions to human rights laws," and that is appropriate to what we are discussing today. "Proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation." We have heard a lot of that in the past day and a half. "If human rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why not add one more group to those protected from discrimination? Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support that has been given to civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade. Although popular and politically understandable, the human rights analogy cannot withstand careful analysis.

"Adding homosexual behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. It expands the reach of such laws from their initial limits, protecting a particular unchangeable and morally neutral status like race to include an entire galaxy of, shall we say different behaviour.

"Such laws have always required a sensitive balancing of social interest. On the one hand, there is a substantial social benefit in continuing the historic deference given to human choices and discretion. The freedom of association valued by all includes the corollary right to nonassociation. On the other hand, there is an equally strong social benefit in discouraging arbitrary decisions that cause widespread injury to innocent parties.

"Human rights laws have struck a delicate balance that accommodates both interests. They give substantial relief to those who have been the victims of prejudice, but they do so without limiting the right of anyone to make decisions based on reasonable criteria. By forbidding arbitrary or irrational decisions that cause substantial harm to innocent parties, they preserve intact discretionary decision-making based on reason and common sense.

"The tenuous balance represented by these laws is reflected in the few and carefully chosen classes protected by them. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances. In short, gay rights laws meet none of the traditional requirements for human rights legislation for protection.

"Homosexuals have never been able to demonstrate a convincing pattern of discrimination that causes them substantial socioeconomic injury. They are a class of people linked together through behaviour, not unchangeable status. Their actions are not morally neutral. Reasonable people, for reasons of deep-seated moral conviction, of health, of psychological stability or of common sense, may wish to take a person's homosexual lifestyle into account in their decision-making, all without the slightest tinge of bigotry or irrationality."

My final reference to this publication is that society has every right to prefer heterosexual behaviour as a matter of social policy.

"Society need not be ashamed of promoting the family. It can legitimately encourage people to organize themselves into families in order to get special social privileges. Strong families are the foundation of a strong society. The family is the microcosm of society. Through providing essential services to society such as procreation, education, welfare and training, it renders incalculable benefits that society can reasonably seek to reward.

"Homosexuality is essentially antifamily. It encourages promiscuous sexuality, a self-centred morality and socially irresponsible behaviour that exacts huge costs from society. The law has every right to discourage people from entering into paths that are demonstratively destructive, physically and psychologically, first to the homosexuals and to society itself."

We on this side of the House have to wonder how much support this concept has in Ontario. I know from my own mail, and it is so for the members on this side of the House and I suspect on the other side of the House, there is very little support among the people of the province. The government and its New Democratic Party allies are merely catering to a very vociferous minority opinion on this issue. Only when we hear from a broad spectrum of opinion in this province can we draw conclusions.

Some of the points I have made may sound exaggerated, but I believe they are valid and understandable. Given the lack of public debate on this issue, I suspect these questions and concerns may be only the beginning from a legal point of view if this legislation goes through.

Personally, I see no need for this legislation. It is the product of trendy, social egalitarianism. Instead of choosing the true democratic process to address this sensitive issue, the government and its buddies to the left have chosen to address the concerns of a minority.

Many of the groups and organizations supporting this amendment have as their goal to reshape what we are in this country into something we are not. They repudiate virtually all of the values out of which this country has emerged. They debunk our religion and undermine our families. I urge the government to take this issue to the public, discover the true opinions of the province, the people we represent, and then decide the proper direction to take.

Yesterday the Attorney General said that when this is behind us we would all have to look back and be proud of the decisions we made. I know I am going to be proud of the decision I make in voting against this amendment. I remind the members on the government side of the House that there is going to be a division on this issue; they are going to have to stand up and be counted and they, as well as their constituents, are going to have to look back at how they voted on this issue.

I urge the members on the other side of the House, as well as all members of this House, when dealing with this socially significant amendment, to reflect upon whence we come, who we are and what we believe.

Mr. Henderson: I want to say a few brief words to this Legislature about issues raised by this bill and by the amendment posed by the member for Ottawa Centre prohibiting discrimination against men and women who are homosexual.

At the outset, I might say that I gave, as many of us have given I am discovering, a great deal of thought and consideration to and did a great deal of soul searching about this amendment and this bill. I very seriously considered voting against it for two reasons. First, I do believe that the family, by which I mean the traditional heterosexual family, is the building block of a healthy community.

I believe this as a legislator, and before I became a legislator I believed it as a psychiatrist and as an amateur social-political philosopher. I do lament the loss of the extended family as a major ingredient of social and family life, and I lament as well the more recent attenuation of the nuclear family and the effects of that attenuation, I believe, on children's development and mental health.

I have therefore been very attentive to arguments I have heard to the effect that this bill will weaken the family by condoning alternatives to healthy heterosexual union. I have been very sensitive to the cogent arguments -- put forward, incidentally, by some of the members opposite -- of thoughtful churchmen and others, and also by some of our own members, who, motivated by a compelling sense of moral rightness, say that this bill is an assault on the values and truths that have underpinned our social order for centuries, if not for millenia. I am sensitive to those considerations and I find them in many ways compelling.

However, I have not entirely been persuaded that this is indeed what will occur. It does seem that a distinction can be made between removing discrimination against particular individuals, on the one hand, and condoning their lifestyle, on the other hand, whatever condoning someone else's lifestyle might prove to mean anyway. Although the matter can be debated, I am not convinced that condoning homosexuality is the effect of this amendment or, at any rate, that it is the principal or most important effect.

There has been a long and sometimes vitriolic debate within the circles of psychiatry and psychoanalysis, my dual professions in a former incarnation, about whether homosexuality is or is not an illness. Currently, the pendulum has swung in the direction of proclaiming homosexuality to be not an illness but rather a lifestyle choice. Accordingly, the so-called diagnosis of homosexuality was removed from the classification of psychiatric disorders of the American Psychiatric Association a few years ago as a result, in part, of the lobbying efforts of the gay caucus of the APA.

16:20

Psychiatric practice -- diagnostic practice in Canada, as not infrequently proves to be the case -- has followed generally along the lines of the American experience. In January of this year, the Canadian Psychiatric Association passed a resolution in favour of the kind of amendment forbidding discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation that has been put forward by the member for Ottawa Centre.

That is not surprising, because psychiatrists and psychoanalysts in Canada, from the days of Dr. Brock Chisholm and before, have taken a keen interest in matters of public mental health policy and personal liberty and freedom. The Canadian Psychiatric Association ably reflected that dedication in its resolution.

Traditionally, of course, homosexuality was considered an illness. Its ideology was felt to have to do with an absent or ineffective or brutal and domineering father, on the one hand, and a cold or infantilizing or exploitative mother, on the other. In clinical practice, one indeed often sees such family constellations in the backgrounds of homosexual people. Yet there are claimed to be exceptions, and there is a viewpoint that the homosexual lifestyle choice is as much a matter of constitutional endowment and biological disposition as a matter of developmental experience.

My own view on those questions is to favour a middle ground on both counts. Although I believe there is a constitutional predisposition at work -- and after all, none of us can escape our constitutional predispositions; we are stuck with them -- I believe family and life experience along the lines of the classical formulation I just mentioned are important contributory causes. Although I do not believe that homosexuality ought to be considered an illness, I do not quite feel I can consider it an entirely healthy lifestyle choice.

For one thing, it is often not a choice at all but something an individual confronts as an inevitable facet of his own mental biological makeup, sometimes in a very agonizing fashion indeed, sometimes after years of vigorous and painful denial.

Be all that as it may -- whether illness or lifestyle choice or something in between -- it hardly seems that homosexual people deserve to be discriminated against. In other words, I believe, of course, that they do not. For that matter, no people deserve to be discriminated against, and the only reason for singling out homosexual people for special mention is that public attitudes are often very strong and very negative and therefore discrimination is rendered rather likely. We all know that and have heard of many examples.

I said there were two reasons I almost voted against this bill. The second has to do with what some of my colleagues have called the rules of party solidarity of the British parliamentary tradition. This is a government bill, so the argument goes, so the government members ought to support it.

Mr. Runciman: We have heard that one before.

Mr. Henderson: I have not seen those rules. The member anticipates my next remarks, as a matter of fact. I do not believe those rules exist.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Talk to your whip.

Mr. Henderson: To be sure, there is a tradition, albeit an uneven and oft-departed-from tradition of relative party solidarity, but traditions are not rules. Questioning and, if necessary, challenging traditions are part of what liberalism and representative democracy are all about.

I was tempted to vote against this amendment to reaffirm the right of individual legislators to speak their minds and exercise their vote as they see fit, according to their conscience, on matters of individual conviction.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You have done that once.

Mr. Henderson: I did not, as a matter of fact. No, I did not vote against Bill 94 in this Legislature. I voted against it in committee but not in the Legislature.

Mr. McClellan: You chickened out.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It was still enough to keep you out of the cabinet.

Mr. Henderson: I was tempted on both counts, I might say, but did not. Yet to vote against this amendment, which I really am rather inclined to favour -- that is, the amendment -- just to prove the point of individual prerogative, would have seemed a wasted voting franchise, just as does adherence to groupthink.

I content myself instead with complimenting and congratulating the member for Erie and the member for Grey for their courage and for their vigorous defence of principles they deem to be important. I am critical of those disposed to criticize those members for having the courage of their convictions and for speaking out on a matter of firm principle.

Ms. E. J. Smith: Are you talking about me again?

Mr. Henderson: Never.

As one of the members opposite observed, I have been in that situation. I know well how it feels and I remain no more supportive of taboos on free expression than I am of taboos on sexual freedom and taboos on homosexuality. Why would anyone who can support this amendment -- that is, who does not like taboos on sexual freedom -- not also support the right of individuals to speak and vote as they see fit? To be critical of any member of this House for speaking against this amendment is, in that sense for me, an impossible and self-contradictory position.

Finally, in my profession as a psychoanalyst and psychotherapist, I have known and worked with men and women who were homosexuals both as colleagues, I might say, and as patients and who, by any standard of good colleagueship and good practice that I knew of, practised very competent, if not excellent, psychotherapy.

The question of impulse control is a separate matter. Heterosexual individuals can involve themselves in paedophilia -- that is, sexual activity with children -- the same as homosexual men and women can. Fortunately, in both groups it is very rare. People who have invoked comparisons with bestiality are simply uttering an irrelevance, in my view.

A male child psychotherapist who happens to be homosexual is most unlikely to embark on sexual activity with little boys, just as a male child psychotherapist who happens to be heterosexual is most unlikely to embark on sexual activity with little girls. Impulse control and sexual orientation are really quite different matters.

In conclusion, it seems to me that homosexual men and women, whether troubled or content, whether ill or well, whether evil or righteous according to some moral standard, deserve protection from discrimination, and increased militancy among gay rights groups, which some have feared as a result of this amendment, is as likely to be attenuated by the amendment as fostered by it.

For all these reasons, though sometimes troubled by this amendment and sometimes disposed to counsel its defeat, I will vote in favour of Bill 7 and its amendment.

Mr. Hennessy: I am very pleased to see that the Attorney General is in the House at present, because his comments yesterday regarding the Irish people, and also those of the Jewish faith, left a bad taste for the people of the riding of Fort William. I have had a few calls. As a person of Irish descent, I feel the remarks by the Attorney General about drinking problems were away out of line. If he had made remarks of that nature --

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am Irish myself. What can I do?

Mr. Hennessy: I do not know whether he counts. I am not sure he is an Irishman.

Hon. Mr. Scott: And I drink.

Mr. Hennessy: I can say I am not proud of his stature then if he, as an Irish person, made that comment; I do not think people who are Irish think much of him.

The Attorney General mentioned that the declaration of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops at the beginning of 1979 more or less supported what he was discussing, but he did not mention its stand of 1986. He forgot to mention the stand of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, along with the recent stand in 1986 of the council of Roman Catholic bishops, which opposed the amendment in section 18.

16:30

Many people have spoken to me and written to me opposing this amendment. In my 10 years as a member, I have not had as many people calling me and writing me letters concerning any single issue. These people are really concerned about the proposed amendments in section 18.

I will read some of the letters I have received. Here is one:

"I am writing to you about Bill 7 regarding sexual orientation, section 18, numbers 1 to 5. This section seems to give respectability to homosexual behaviour or lifestyle and to give homosexual unions the status of families in our society. I certainly hope and pray to God that this will be well fought against. Thank you for all the good you are trying to do for all of us."

Another one reads:

"Although I support basic human rights for all and feel compassion for the homosexual person, I request that the passing of Bill 7, now before the Ontario Legislature, be defeated."

Another reads:

"It is with concern and a personal duty that I write to you concerning Bill 7. Much in the bill is good and acceptable. However, section 18, numbers 1 to 5, to amend the Human Rights Code of Ontario, prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of a person's sexual orientation, is unacceptable. Although I feel compassion towards homosexuals, I feel their lifestyle is contrary to Christian morality, and any law that leaves the door open to such a lifestyle will cause great harm to society. The words `sexual orientation' in Bill 7 in the present form, if passed, will promote and recognize homosexual unions. This is totally unacceptable. The bill in the present form will erode the status of normal families."

Another reads:

"This is in response to the statement of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops in regard to Bill 7, section 18, numbers 1 to 5. This letter is to register my dissatisfaction. I do not find it acceptable for the government to amend legislation to give homosexual unions the status of families. This would seriously restrict the freedom of churches, governments and societies, businesses and schools and sets criteria of conduct for their employees. Thank you for listening to my views on this matter."

There are many more. I have one from the Queensway Cathedral:

"We strongly urge your opposition to the above legislation. One need not only look into history to see the consequences to other societies which endorsed homosexuality. Thank you for reviewing our concerns. We look forward to a reply."

Another one reads:

"I understand the Legislature is resuming considering Bill 7, a law designed to bring the statutes of Ontario into line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am particularly interested in the proposed amendment, passed in committee, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. I feel that to pass Bill 7 would be a great injustice."

The Big Brothers of Canada have also written me a letter, and no doubt they have written to other members. I have received hundreds of letters in regard to the people who are opposed to the passing of section 18 of this bill. Only one other person has written to me, and that was an anonymous letter.

The majority of people in the riding of Fort William and the city of Thunder Bay are greatly opposed to it. I have met many people at various functions and on the streets in different areas, and they have said to me they are a little uptight that the Liberal government, along with the New Democratic Party, would try to bring in a bill such as this, when it was originated in a committee, without any public consultation or discussion with other people who perhaps should have had some input.

Because of the NDP amendment to the Liberal Bill 7, a bill drafted to update the Ontario Human Rights Code, I will be voting against the legislation. The amendment claims to protect homosexuality by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Are the rights of the homosexuals protected? Currently, they have the same rights as other citizens. They enjoy the freedom of assembly and of speech. They can attend any church. Homosexuals can own property, enforce contracts and go about their day-to-day business like anyone else, without limit or restriction. Homosexuals may work where they wish; they cannot be fired for a sexual preference.

Under Ontario law, you can disagree with a person's sexual preference but you cannot deny them their basic rights. To include sexual orientation in the Human Rights Code will radically change this balance of rights. In fact, the NDP amendment will mean that in addition to all the rights our citizens enjoy, homosexuals will receive special rights. These special rights will be recognized by law and will effectively enshrine the lifestyle and behaviour of homosexuals. No other group's lifestyle and behaviour is protected by law. The Charter of Rights protects us from discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, sex, religion, age, etc. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, not sexual orientation or preferences.

The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops is opposing these amendments on the grounds that homosexual behaviour or lifestyle is against Christian morality. They believe that Bill 7, with the NDP amendment, will cause great harm. The bishops say the NDP amendment will promote the recognition of homosexual couples as married and will seriously restrict the ability of institutions such as churches, government and school boards to set criteria for the conduct of their employees.

Refusing to pass laws that give special rights to homosexuals is not discrimination. I will vote against the amendment to Bill 7 because I do not believe homosexual lifestyle or behaviour should be enshrined in our Human Rights Code. The generally held opinion among MPPs l know and the public is that homosexuals should have no more and no less rights than any other person. Lawyers will argue that enshrining their lifestyle will only open the door to other social groups to demand similar protection. This will lead to an erosion of the fabric of our society.

As far as I am concerned, Bill 7, especially with section 18, is a bad law, poorly drafted by the Liberal Party and supported by the New Democratic Party, its partner, and not fully thought through. That is why, when this bill comes to a vote, I will not support it.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The recent comments by members leave the impression, I am sure inadvertently, that the position of the Progressive Conservative Party is to vote against the amendment. I want to remind the committee that the position of our party is to have a free vote on the amendment. Some of us will be supporting it.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Callahan): That is hardly a point of order.

Mr. Gillies: It is a point of interest.

The Acting Chairman: A point of view perhaps.

Mr. Dean: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on consideration of this legislation in committee of the whole House.

Bill 7, introduced by the Attorney General, does amend many Ontario statutes to conform with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many of those amendments are supportable and can be considered housekeeping changes. Section 18, however, which we are considering today, was introduced in the standing committee on administration of justice by a member of the NDP and most definitely is not a housekeeping change to our provincial act. More important, it does not bring our statutes into conformity with the Charter of Rights but introduces an issue that is not a part of the charter.

In adding sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination, this section goes beyond what I and the residents of my constituency can accept. I have had a great number of telephone calls and letters from and personal conversations with people in all parts of the riding of Wentworth, including many of our fine young people, who are anxious, upset and vehemently opposed to this amendment. As well, many church groups and other community organizations working with youth are greatly concerned about the message that would be sent out to our young people if this section were to be approved. Not a single resident of my riding has asked me to support it.

As the representative of my people, I do not support this amendment. The people of Glanbrook, Hamilton and Stoney Creek, all portions of my riding, do not support this attempt to tamper with our Judaeo-Christian set of values, and I do not support it personally.

In addition to rejecting the substance of this section of the bill, I object to the process the Liberal government has used. The justice committee dealt with this NDP amendment in the course of routine consideration of the government's bill. The Liberal and NDP members of the committee did not permit open public hearings where citizens could present their views on this important matter.

If the government wants to be fair and allow my constituents and others from across the province to present their legitimate submissions to us, this section should be removed from the present bill and introduced as a separate bill. In this way it would be clear that this amendment is separate and distinct from those other parts of Bill 7 that really do bring many Ontario statutes into conformity with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

16:40

That charter guarantees equal treatment to every Canadian and prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, sex, age or religion in many aspects of our daily life. Nowhere does it refer to sexual orientation. In fact, on January 29, 1981, the special joint committee of Parliament on the Constitution of Canada voted 22 to two to defeat an amendment that would have included sexual orientation in section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was the clear intention of the special joint committee not to include sexual orientation in the charter.

I deplore the attempt of this government to pass this controversial section of Bill 7 without the widespread consultation that will permit the citizens of my riding of Wentworth and all the citizens of Ontario to express their will concerning it. There are a great many unanswered questions concerning the effect it will have on our society. I ask again that the government postpone further action on this section of the bill until such consultation has taken place.

I cannot support this proposal as it sits, and I ask my colleagues from all parties to join me in voting against it.

Mr. Davis: I rise to enter this most sensitive debate. The inclusion of sexual orientation in the Human Rights Code in Bill 7 is an initiative and an issue that was introduced in this House by the Liberal government. In fact, the Premier is so committed to this initiative that, according to newspaper reports, he is taking an unprecedented step, to my knowledge, in personally soliciting his caucus members to support this initiative.

One can only wonder. If this was such an important aspect of the Liberals' policy with respect to their concern about discrimination, as the Attorney General seemed to indicate yesterday in his remarks, why was this not part of the original bill? Was it an oversight? Unlikely. Was it part of the accord contracted by the New Democratic Party that they would introduce this piece of sensitive legislation after second reading, knowing the Liberals would support it?

This is an action of a Liberal government under a leader who has stated on many occasions throughout this province that, under his leadership, the government of his day would provide an open government; there would be no doors, no barriers, no walls. What do we find when we look in that Alice in Wonderland mystery? We find doors, secrecy and manipulation, especially when the issue is a controversial issue or one of a nature that may inflame public opinion.

What action has this Premier initiated? Have this Attorney General, his cabinet ministers and the back-benchers of the Liberal Party --

Mr. Brandt: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I would like to bring the attention of the chair to the fact that at this moment there is not one member of the third party in the House to hear the well-prepared address of my colleague.

The Acting Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Brandt: It is an insult to the position he has so carefully put together and is presenting to this Legislature that not one member of the New Democratic Party has deemed it important enough to be in attendance.

I thought the Houseshould know that, particularly because on another matter just the other day with respect to the emergency debate, the Liberals pointed out that we were rather slim in numbers at one point. I agree that this was the case, but I have to add that at no time were we ever in a position where we had absolutely no members in this House. I thought I would mention that.

The Acting Chairman: That is a fine point of view, but not a point of order.

Mr. Brandt: I apologize. I did not realize it was not an appropriate point.

The Acting Chairman: The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Brandt: I am sorry.

Mr. Davis: That is quite all right. They are probably watching it on TV.

Mr. Philip: We were outside praying for the reverend.

Mr. Davis: That is quite all right. I can always use prayers. I do not think there is anybody in society who cannot have someone pray for him when it is not a benefit. I do not mind prayers, even if they are from the New Democratic Party.

After the bill had received second reading, the amendment was introduced. There was no indication to the people of this province that such an initiative was to be introduced and supported by the Liberal government without any public consultation. In fact, when the amendment was introduced, no opportunity was provided or asked for by this Liberal government, by the leader of this province or by the Attorney General, for the public of Ontario to be heard.

This is in the light of the Premier's statement during the debate on Bill 30, in which he accused the previous government of failing to provide an opportunity for public debate on an issue that might dramatically change the values, the perceptions and the feelings of the people of Ontario. Strangely, we now find that this Liberal government short-circuits the democratic process of providing a forum for public debate on this most sensitive issue. I also note with interest that two members of the government have broken ranks with the Premier and with the policy of the Liberal Party.

It is strange that the leaders of some religious communities who challenged the right of 125 members of this Legislature to pass legislation, namely, Bill 30, that affected the social fibre of the province without consultation today are the same people who are advocating the immediate passage of this piece of legislation without providing that same opportunity to other people in this province, thus denying them the right of expression which is their democratic right. I find that strange indeed.

The process of introduction of this piece of legislation is wrong. There is no opportunity for public input, no opportunity to resolve some of the unanswered questions and yes, I say to the Attorney General, some of the fears.

Why is it that individuals who oppose this amendment are somehow suspect? I refer to such remarks as "a dinosaur mentality." This is a very sensitive issue. People's intrinsic values are being challenged, values they have developed as part of their social and cultural milieu, values that come in part from their religious heritage and background. In a world and a society that proclaim a sense of tolerance, individuals should have the right to freedom of their own expression, especially on this piece of legislation, so they can vote according to their conscience and their value system.

I champion the decision of my leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), to allow the members of this caucus to vote according to their conscience and according to the information they have assimilated within their own value system, to make an expression of what they believe is important for them as individuals and for their community. It is my opinion that the members of the gay community already have, in our Constitution and in our Human Rights Code, protections against the discrimination that this piece of legislation is attempting to protect them from.

16:50

Proponents of the bill indicate that this minority group is denied housing. What do I say to the young unwed mother who has a child and finds tremendous difficulty in getting a home because she is unmarried and is a single parent? What do we say to the handicapped, who have tremendous difficulty in finding housing?

Whether the expressed feelings and emotions are real or unreal, the fact remains there is much fear that the value of the family may be threatened. A fear has been expressed by many members of society and leaders of our religious communities. Specifically, I think the Roman Catholic church has expressed great concern.

Mr. Philip: Not all of them.

Mr. Davis: No one ever said "all of them." I assure members that no poll was done in the average parish to ask how the people would respond to this initiative.

It all lies with the government, because the Attorney General will not allow the people of Ontario the opportunity at least to debate it and through debate perhaps remove many of the fears that are part of the milieu of the society we live in. This government does not seem to be concerned to express its position.

I place great importance on the value of the family and the tradition of family -- the normal family. I find it difficult to support this piece of legislation. I do not condone discrimination of any type. In my life, I have always worked to remove discrimination.

I point out to the Premier, the Attorney General, the member for Ottawa Centre, the Liberal Party, my own colleagues, the New Democratic Party and the people of Ontario that intolerance and discrimination are not natural values we are born with, like genes. We do not receive them automatically at birth. These are attitudes, characteristics and behaviours that are taught. They are learned from within a family value system, a cultural system and a religious system.

Young children today are not aware of the differences between the children they play with. Those differences are only highlighted when they are pointed out, and the negative attitudes of discrimination and intolerance are reinforced by a society, by a parent, by a school system and by a church.

The Premier and his Liberal colleagues cannot legislate an end to discrimination through laws, regulations and amendments. Discrimination and intolerance will always continue, even with laws. The end of negative values in society will occur only with an internal change in a value system of a person. Laws cannot do that; only dialogue, discussion, interaction and an assessment and reflection of one's values can change a person.

I believe that is the process to follow. I am unable to support this legislation and its initiative, because it is contrary to all I believe, from values that have developed out of my background, my religious values and my personal values.

Mr. Villeneuve: I rise today for a few moments to participate in this debate. I was a member of the standing committee on administration of justice in early May, and two members of that justice committee who voted against this amendment were from the Progressive Conservative Party. I did not think we would be voting on the amendment to section 18 of Bill 7.

It should not be treated as an amendment. It is a very major piece of legislation, in spite of the fact only two words, "sexual orientation," are involved. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not mention sexual orientation. It is a choice of lifestyle and a major deviation from what the family traditionally has been across Ontario and across this great country.

I ask the Premier and the Attorney General why they are imposing their own personal moralities and ideas on their caucus. This caucus is participating in a free vote. I emphasize that it will be a free vote. They will recall that in the standing committee on administration of justice there was a free vote. Two members of this party voted in favour of the amendment and two voted against it.

I find it somewhat strange when I read reports in the media, reports that are not wrong but certainly are not right, that say this amendment was supported by all parties. It was supported by certain members of all parties, but it was not carried unanimously. I want to make the Attorney General very aware of this, because he was talking about two out of three, or whatever, a while ago. There were two out of four from the Progressive Conservative Party.

I listened very carefully to the Attorney General's presentation yesterday. He spoke somewhat in parables. We read that in the Bible. I would like to take issue with him on certain statements he made. One was: "Quebec took that step almost a decade ago. Those who are fearful of the consequences of taking the step will want to look very carefully at our sister province."

Twenty years ago, our sister province had the highest per capita birth rate of anywhere in Canada. Our sister province now has the lowest birth rate. They may find that a big joke. However, that was a statement the Attorney General made yesterday. This is a statement he very carefully omitted. It is a fact. Indeed, his Liberal cousins in Quebec intend to provide some monetary incentives to have Quebec increase its birth rate per capita. That is interesting. I say that just by way of comment.

It is a choice of lifestyle. If we had depended on it to create and propagate the great country we have, it would have been a rather slow process. Again I ask, will the Attorney General free his members and allow a free vote?

I compliment the member for Grey and the member for Erie, who yesterday came out four-square against it and read numerous letters into the record. I think we all received similar ones, almost word for word. I am not going to read numerous letters as the member for Grey did. However, they expressed my sentiments very much.

I see the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith) making some comments and thinking it is something of a joke. I hope it is not that way. I have a letter here from the Most Reverend John M. Sherlock. I believe she knows the most reverend gentleman. I believe there are other members of her caucus who come from the immediate area, such as the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) and the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne). I will quote in part

Ms. E. J. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I do not take the matter of the declining birth rate lightly at all. I did what I could in my own good time to contribute to it.

Mr. Villeneuve: Good for her; as I did, and I am proud of it too. I must agree, and I am sure the member agrees, that her good husband had something to do with it, and my good wife certainly had a great deal to do with it as well.

Mr. Callahan: Your wife had something to do with Smith's family? You are in trouble.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

17:00

Mr. Villeneuve: I hope this debate does not degenerate into a laughing matter, because it is not a laughing matter.

I have a letter here from the Most Reverend John M. Sherlock, DD, Bishop of London. It reads in part:

"There are grave practical considerations which need study and consultation in our province before any decision is made regarding the inclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination. It can be reasonably anticipated that such a provision would immediately be used as a legal shield for homosexual activities. The Roman Catholic bishops are not alone among religious leaders in fearing that such a provision would render all but impossible the dismissal of teachers or clergy involved in homosexual activities."

The letter does go on, and I suggest to the member for London South, as I do to all other honourable members from the London area, that the Most Reverend John M. Sherlock does have a most interesting letter. I suggest that they read it. I understand the member for London South is also the whip, and it will be a whipped vote. I will see whether this letter has indeed borne fruit.

A bishop from Quebec, the Most Reverend Bernard Hubert, Bishop of Saint-Jean-Longueuil, is president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Attorney General will note that he also is very concerned about the steps this government intends to take in section 18 of Bill 7 in allowing special rights for homosexual persons. I want to put that on the record, because he has left this assembly with the impression that no one from Quebec is concerned.

The Attorney General also used an example regarding John Fitzgerald Kennedy and the way he spoke. I find it somewhat difficult to compare people of the Catholic faith, or any other faith, in the same context as homosexuality. I hope he was speaking in parables. If he was, then it is understandable; but if he was not, I have a great deal of difficulty in reconciling the comparison.

I have a letter from my own bishop. I will read it in part. It is from the Most Reverend Eugène P. LaRocque, diocese of Alexandria, Cornwall. It reads, in part, as follows:

"Durant notre rencontre des évêques de l'Ontario, au début d'octobre, nous avons considéré le projet de loi 7, surtout en sa section 18, qui parle de l'orientation sexuelle. J'ai inclus le mémoire préparé par les évêques de l'Ontario pour que tu puisses en prendre connaissance.

"Il va sans dire que j'appuie mes confrères évêques en demandant que cette section soit omise du projet de loi omnibus, que l'on permette une discussion bien plus prolongée d'un sujet qui pourrait avoir de grandes conséquences, surtout vis-à-vis le mariage."

Yesterday, the Attorney General, and I quote him, spoke as a Catholic. I have some difficulty in accepting how he can fly in the face of these kinds of suggestions and recommendations from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Not all the bishops agree, you know.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is an insulting remark.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have here correspondence from the Big Brothers, but I will not read it, because it has been done by a number of previous members and even by one of the Attorney General's colleagues; I believe it was the member for Grey. I also have a letter from a trustee of the Simcoe County Board of Education showing great and grave concern about amendments to section 18 of Bill 7.

I have had probably half a dozen letters from the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, but I quoted those two initially to assure the members of the Liberal government that there is concern. I have correspondence from the Wesleyan church of Inkerman, in my riding, of which the Reverend James R. Warrington is pastor. It reads in part:

"As pastor of a local church congregation, we support your opposition to the amendment on sexual orientation to Bill 7. We are opposed to that amendment on the grounds that it does infringe upon family values and would unreasonably restrict the freedom and rights of schools, churches, businesses and self-governing professions. It would be an inappropriate interference with the moral choices and community standards of Canadians. Canadians are traditionally family-oriented, and legislation such as the amendment proposed could seriously damage family values and morals."

There was a debate on this very subject in 1981. We have taken time to look at a few of the Hansards from back then. It is most interesting to see what a great number of the colleagues of the Attorney General who are still here had to say about the enshrining of a particular lifestyle. I will not repeat the comments, but they make for very interesting reading. I suggest that at some time before this debate is concluded, the Attorney General should look at what some of the elected Liberal members had to say in 1981.

In the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, I received about 300 letters and/or phone calls; they ran about 60 to one against section 18 of Bill 7. I see my colleague to the north of me, the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Poirier). What type of correspondence has he been receiving? He covers a riding very similar to mine, which is adjacent to Quebec. If he has occasion to participate in this debate, I would very much like to hear his statistics on this item.

Mr. Poirier: Much better than yours.

Mr. Villeneuve: Mine are pretty good. If they are any better than mine, I do not know where they are.

I fear that the message that would be sent forth from this type of legislation would be very detrimental and very damaging. As the Attorney General knows, the Canadian Charter of Rights can be changed, and right now it does not address lifestyles in any way, shape or form. There is some fear that a well-organized lobby, once it has seven provinces with more than 50 per cent of the population, could create a situation whereby the Canadian Charter of Rights could be amended to include the very type of legislation we are discussing in this chamber today. That concerns me.

I would like someone to explain to me, as someone who is not a lawyer, the real, true and eventual implications of what enshrining a particular lifestyle could have on future generations.

A wise old gentleman told me one time, "You know, we are only one generation away from oblivion." We can all laugh at that one as well, but it may be truer than we want to admit. I always have some difficulty with freedom. Everyone wants freedom and more freedom. No one seems to be prepared to take on the major responsibilities that come with the type of freedoms we take so freely.

It has been an honour to participate in this debate. I look forward to a vote some time in the future. I will be voting against the amendment to Bill 7, section 18.

17:10

Mr. Partington: I rise at this time to indicate my opposition to subsections 18(1) to 18(5), inclusive, of Bill 7.

First and foremost, I have grave concerns about the hasty and secretive fashion in which this section was introduced to Bill 7, which is now before us.

Mr. Wildman: Was it not a public meeting?

Mr. Partington: If the member will wait, I will get to that in a few minutes.

Furthermore, I strongly believe our current laws provide all Ontarians with adequate protection against discrimination. After all, the Canadian Charter of Rights specifically provides that every individual is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection of the law. If passed, this amendment will provide a group of Ontarians with special status or additional rights that are not afforded to other groups in our society.

As originally conceived, Bill 7 was to be housekeeping legislation, an omnibus bill that would amend a number of Ontario statutes to bring them into conformity with the provisions of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, Bill 7 was not supposed to include what would be considered substantive changes in law.

It should be noted that section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides as follows: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

The raison d'être of Bill 7 was to bring a group of Ontario laws into conformity with this section, yet nowhere in section 15 or even the charter as a whole is sexual orientation specifically enumerated as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Accordingly, I believe that by amending the Ontario Human Rights Code in the fashion envisioned by section 18 of this bill, this legislation goes beyond the scope of the Charter of Rights. In effect, this has transformed Bill 7 from housekeeping legislation into legislation that introduces substantive changes to Ontario law.

While I am on the topic of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I would like to re-emphasize that after a full and complete review of this matter, unlike what has occurred in this situation, the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, by a vote of 22 to two, soundly indicated that sexual orientation was not to be included in section 15 of the charter.

If the Charter of Rights does not include a provision relating to sexual orientation, I question how Bill 7, in its effort to bring the Ontario Human Rights Code into conformity with the charter, can include a provision relating to sexual orientation. If anything, Bill 7 takes the Human Rights Code beyond the scope of the charter, rather than bringing it into conformity.

As the title of Bill 7 points out and as was confirmed by the advertisements that appeared in the province's newspapers to solicit input on this legislation, Bill 7 is an act to amend certain Ontario statutes to conform to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In neither the ads nor the act's title was the public put on notice that the issue of sexual orientation would be debated. Consequently, the standing committee on administration of justice did not examine this issue in full, nor did it examine it from all perspectives.

Mr. Wildman: Wrong.

Mr. Partington: I am absolutely right. Furthermore, most groups and individuals who wanted to share their views on this issue failed to do so, obviously because they believed the scope of Bill 7 did not extend to this issue. In fact, it was only at the 11th hour, after the time for public submissions had ended, that this amendment to Bill 7 was introduced by the member for Ottawa Centre and passed with the unanimous support of the New Democratic Party and government members in committee.

The failure to give the public clear and proper notice of this amendment, together with every opportunity to make submissions outlining concerns about this initiative, makes a mockery of the government's pronouncement on taking office in June 1985 that it intended to run an open and accessible government. If anything has been closed to date, this issue certainly has.

I might mention in passing for the member for Ottawa Centre that on May 2, when the committee was dealing with the Mental Health Act -- it is a very interesting parallel -- there were certain amendments by the member for Ottawa Centre as a result of submissions, I think, of legally oriented arguments. Before the vote was taken, Dr. Saunders, a psychiatrist at the Clarke Institute, and another doctor had serious reservations about the amendments proposed by the member and suggested they would put psychiatry back 100 years in Ontario. Submissions were made by these doctors, and as a result, l moved to open public hearings so these doctors, who had the expertise and knowledge to run our mental health facilities in Ontario, could make submissions. As a result of their submissions, we have the Mental Health Act amendments here.

It is interesting to note that the member for Ottawa Centre and her associate the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) voted against opening the hearings so we could hear from Dr. Saunders and his associates. The parallel is there. The member did not want to hear from the experts, the people who could bring expertise to the issue.

The government and the third party want to pass subsections 18(1) to 18(5) without giving the great mass of the public in this province, who are very concerned about this issue, a chance to present their side of the case, a side that is very important to this issue and very important to the people of Ontario.

On April 1, 1986, in responding to Paul Tremblay, a Simcoe County Board of Education trustee who had written to complain about the undemocratic fashion in which this section was introduced

Mr. Wildman: Undemocratic?

Mr. Partington: Yes, undemocratic. I thank the member for emphasizing my statement.

In his response, the Premier stated, "I want to assure you that all submissions on this issue from concerned individuals and groups will be carefully considered before a decision is made." Yet, on further investigation, Mr. Tremblay was advised that no further submissions were being accepted on this issue.

17:20

It is obvious to me from the many phone calls and letters I have received on the issue since this amendment was introduced that there is an abundance of concerned individuals and groups who are interested in this matter and who would have made submissions had they been aware that any thought was being given to the introduction of this amendment. The fact is that the amendment was introduced after the public discussions were closed. The committee understood it was dealing with housekeeping amendments.

Ms. Gigantes: Why did you not tell them it was being circulated?

Mr. Chairman: Order. If the member would address the chair, perhaps there would be fewer interjections.

Mr. Partington: That is an excellent idea.

I have had letters from church leaders, well-respected groups such as Big Brothers, children's aid societies, employers, landlords, businessmen and ministers, all of whom have expressed serious reservations about the proposed amendment to the Human Rights Code. In fairness, I have discussed the issue in my office with members of Gay Outreach Niagara and have received some correspondence. However, by far, the overwhelming pressure and comment have been from those individuals who are opposed to the amendment to subsections 18(1) to (5).

For example, Reverend Hillsden of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada was quick to point out in his letter to me:

"It is our opinion that the process by which the amendment was included in Bill 7 did not give ample opportunity for the public to make its views known on this matter, which the federal government has admitted addresses some of the most difficult moral and religious concerns of Canadians. This controversial amendment was never made known to the public and was only added to Bill 7 on May 6, 1986, the very day it was moved and carried."

This view was echoed by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

Ms. Gigantes: It is the only way it can be added to Bill 7.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Brock has the floor.

Mr. Partington: I understood it was my turn to speak, and that is what I am trying to do.

The view of Reverend Hillsden, which I just quoted, was echoed by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, which stated:

"It would be wrong for the Ontario Legislature to interpret the stillness of the public on this issue as a lack of public interest. The stillness of the public is not due to a lack of interest but rather to a lack of awareness about the amendment being proposed and its profound social and religious implications."

As a matter of interest, I might refer to only one or two letters of the many I received in opposition, raising some of the issues the public of Ontario is concerned about, wanted to comment on and has been prohibited from doing, wittingly or unwittingly.

One letter I will refer to is from Dave Douevau of 276 Riverview Boulevard, St. Catharines. He writes to me as follows:

"I would like to express my strong opposition to Bill 7 and hope that this letter reaches you before its third reading. This amendment would, I am convinced, seriously undermine the status of the traditional marriage and family in our society. As a family man, I know it is not the thing you would want. Surely our culture needs as many sturdy, strong institutions as possible, and the radical redefinition of these two institutions would be most unsettling. I fear as well that churches, social agencies and home owners would be forced to employ or rent to individuals whose sexual practices or moral standards would be repugnant to them."

I read that only to point out this gentleman's concerns. He is concerned about the family, as we all are, and that we all should support a strong family unit in our society. But he also raises an issue of accommodation, and I might talk about that briefly, because again the member for Ottawa Centre has referred to it.

The passing of subsections 18(1) to (5) would prohibit discrimination, generally speaking, in all accommodation of any kind. I point out that what I am talking now about will raise the need for a full public hearing; it is the reason one should have been held and is the reason one should perhaps still be held before we dispose of this issue, which is so important to us all.

Under section 2 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, dealing with the right to rent accommodation, one will not be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Subsection 20(1 ), which the member for Ottawa Centre referred to, basically says:

"The right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation without discrimination is not infringed by discrimination where the residential accommodation is in a dwelling in which the owner or his or her family reside if the occupant or occupants of the residential accommodation are required to share a bathroom or kitchen facility with the owner or family of the owner."

That is a very narrow exception. For example, it would eliminate what I suggest would be a case where a Mrs. Jones with three children owns a duplex and occupies the lower or upper floor. Because of her upbringing, her traditional family values, her concern for the family, she may decide she does not want to rent that accommodation to someone of a homosexual character. The fact is that, under this act, Mrs. Jones would lose the right to discriminate in that manner.

We all recognize that homosexuals have a right to reasonable accommodation, as do all members of society; that is a fact I accept. However, I also accept the fact that there are people such as the Mrs. Jones I have just referred to who have a right to choose certain moral traditions they choose to live by. Therefore, there has to be a balance between these two social interests, if you like: on the one hand, the right of homosexuals to have reasonable accommodation, as they should, and on the other hand, the right of a Mrs. Jones, as I call her, to make sure her children are brought up in the manner in which she chooses.

When the Attorney General was talking about this bill, he thought people would be opposed to it out of fear or for certain moral reasons. I suggest that people might also be opposed to it or concerned about it out of love for their family, for their children and for their society. It seems to me that on the issue I have just talked about -- on the one hand, the right of someone perhaps to be a little choosey in certain limited circumstances with respect to renting, and on the other hand, the right of a homosexual to have an apartment, which in my submission today does exist -- if there is a concern, it is because of the housing crisis, not because of discrimination.

Anyway, this issue is one that should have been addressed in committee, where the public, the many groups I referred to earlier, have a right to come and make their submissions -- dthose groups, those individuals, as well as the many gay and lesbian rights groups we heard in committee. To make a decision such as that, there should be balanced input; there must be input from both sides. To follow through with this bill, to pass it, to deal with an issue that is this complex without giving the public an opportunity to be heard, is doing a great disservice to the public and to the Legislature.

As I indicated before, I believe homosexuals are entitled to the same rights and freedoms, the same respect and human dignity enjoyed by heterosexuals in a free and democratic society. I submit that, under the laws as they exist, those rights do exist. We do not need this further government intrusion into the rights of society.

17:30

In conclusion, I remind the members of the treatment this issue received when the Ontario Human Rights code was amended in 1981. At that time extensive amendments, not just housekeeping amendments, to the code were under consideration by the Legislature and intensive lobbying efforts were once again mounted in support of a similar amendment. However, after a full and frank public discussion of the issue, this amendment was overwhelmingly rejected.

I would like to refer to a letter by Calvin William Beresh, a lawyer at 5145 Valley Way in Niagara Falls; it is a letter that appeared in the St. Catharines Standard. Subsequent to that I had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Beresh; he is very concerned about this issue. He sees problems about it from a lawyer's point of view.

I will refer to one other item because there was some suggestion with respect to Big Brothers and with respect to religious, philanthropic and educational institutions that they would be exempt from the purview of subsections 18(1) to (5).

I had a look at clause 23(a) of the Human Rights Code, the section that purports to exempt religious, philanthropic and educational institutions. It reads as follows:

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

It is my submission that without making a further amendment to section 23 in regard to sexual orientation, section 23 does not provide the protection that the Attorney General or the member has alluded to. It is certainly not in the bill.

This raises a further issue. The reason I bring it up is that many members of the public are concerned about it. It is another issue that should have been addressed in a public hearing where both sides would have had an opportunity to express their views, to investigate it and to try to work out a workable solution and not just have one side of the issue.

In any event, in the letter to the editor, Mr. Beresh states:

"In 1981, the Human Rights Code was amended extensively, and at that time there was lobbying for this kind of amendment to the code. The amendment was overwhelmingly rejected after over 150 public submissions were made in a public forum. Now, five years later, not one public submission has been accepted. Rather, after second reading, the committee received submissions from a lobby group sponsored by the Canadian Association for Lesbians and Gay Men, which resulted in this amendment being added after the bill had passed first and second reading without previous reference to `sexual orientation.'

"My concern is expressed not only from the point of view of pervasive legal implications but also from the point of view of the democratic system that we want to encourage and that we have been led to believe exists by the new provincial government. Our democratic system of government is based on a number of fundamental principles, one of the most important of which is that each elected member occupies a position of public trust. As I mentioned earlier, the Premier alluded to this principle during his swearing-in ceremony when he spoke about the need for open and accessible government.

"I firmly believe that by passing sections 18, subsections (1) to (5) of Bill 7 into law, without allowing all interested groups and individuals a full and frank opportunity to make their views known on this critically important social and moral issue" -- and the Attorney General has alluded to that -- "the members of the Legislature will be acting in breach of the public trust which was placed in them, and at the same time they will be bringing our democratic system of government into disrepute."

Ms. Gigantes: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman: The previous speaker has suggested I was party to sneaking in the amendments that are before us to the standing committee on administration of justice. As a member of the justice committee, he knows the amendments were circulated by me in February, before we had hearings in February, March and April.

I placed the amendments in early May as we came to the section in the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 7, at which point he says they were introduced. Of course, they were introduced then. He should not suggest that every member of the justice committee had not known about them for three months. Many of the presentations before us indicated the public knew over a period of many weeks in the spring of this year that we were dealing with the amendments before us today.

Mr. Chairman: That is not an appropriate point of privilege.

Mr. Brandt: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman: As chairman of the justice committee, I simply want to respond to what what the member for Ottawa Centre has said in her inappropriate point of privilege; and I know you will not rule me out of order until I have finished responding to the inappropriate point of privilege she has just raised.

We take no issue whatever with the inappropriate point of privilege in the context of that message, but what my colleague was trying to indicate in his address, which I am sure you will rule in order -- do not rule me out of order; I have not finished yet. You cannot rule me out of order until you hear all the arguments I place before you in this humble submission.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I can.

Mr. Brandt: The question at hand is not when the amendments were placed before the committee but that members of the public had no opportunity whatever to express their views before the justice committee so that their views could be known and very carefully balanced in a sensitive way by all members of the committee. Is that out of order?

Mr. Chairman: Yes. That is out of order also.

Ms. Gigantes: Why did you not let them know about it, when you knew about it for three months?

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Cambridge.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Chairman, throw them out and let them argue outside. I would like to add a few remarks and present the view of what I feel is the majority of people of Cambridge on this issue. We are dealing with a very emotional and sensitive issue in this amendment.

As have other members on all sides of the House, I have received a lot of mail, nearly 100 letters, and many phone calls, all but one from constituents opposing this amendment. I received letters supporting the amendment that were from outside my constituency, but I am talking about the ones from constituents of mine in Cambridge. Later, I will refer to the one that supported the amendment.

We are looking at several things here, and I am not going to read any of these letters into the record. In essence, they are similar to many of those that have been read into the record so far. They deal with the moral values and traditions of our society, and this is a point of view that I personally share; it is a moral issue we have to deal with.

I support those who have suggested -- and again this is my personal feeling as well as that of the people who have written to me and phoned my office -- it is a deviation from the traditional family values that we as individuals have grown up with in Ontario and in many other provinces and jurisdictions throughout the free world. As legislators, we should be doing everything we can to support these traditional family values.

It is a well-known fact that there are many family breakdowns in society in this day and age. That is not at issue here, but I am sure anyone who has ever gone into a marriage has gone into it with the full intention of making that marriage work, the traditional family upbringing that we -- certainly I, coming from southwestern Ontario -- have been raised in. I was raised in my younger years in the Presbyterian Church, and after marriage, I became an Anglican. All the church teachings, I feel, support and strengthen our family values.

17:40

I want to make my personal feelings on this absolutely clear. I am opposed to discrimination of any sort against any group of individuals. That has to be very clear, and that protection is there under both the Human Rights Code and the federal act. I feel we cannot and should not allow discrimination against any individual or group in our society.

However, I am opposed to granting special privileges to any one section of society that are not granted to all other sections of society. This point has been made on several occasions. If this amendment were to pass, we would be granting special privileges to a particular group of people who, for whatever reason, are or have chosen to be homosexuals. That is their right. It should not be debated, and it is not being debated in this House. I do not think it has been raised as part of the debate at all. The amendment that is before us goes against what I believe in. I t supports giving special privileges to a particular group of individuals.

I am also concerned, as my colleague has just brought out, that it was brought forward without the people of Ontario having had an opportunity to express an opinion on it. The people of Ontario had every right and every opportunity to deal with all the numerous amendments to the Human Rights Code that are dealt with in Bill 7; they all had an opportunity to deal with everything. However, most of the delegations that were before the committee -- and I subbed in on two or three occasions -- were not aware that this was going to be an issue that was going to be dealt with by this Legislature. It is only fair that we go back and give the people of Ontario who wish to express an opinion for or against this amendment an opportunity to deal with it and make their positions known to the appropriate committee, probably the standing committee on administration of justice.

Because it is an omnibus bill and has many sections in it that should be passed and are not at all controversial, the bill probably should be passed and proclaimed, with this one exception. This may be a way out: to except this one section and delay its proclamation until there has been a full and complete hearing of all those who wish to participate. It is a suggestion; it is an opportunity.

While I am expressing that concern, I also want to express the concern that all members of this Legislature have an opportunity to stand up at the appropriate time and express their opinion by voting for or against the amendment. What I mean is that it is a known fact that our party has a free vote here; it is a known fact that the New Democrats are going to be voting in block in support of the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: You haven't heard the leader say that yet.

Mr. Barlow: I have not heard the leader say that. Maybe they are not; maybe the whip is not on yet.

We know that two Liberal members have spoken in opposition to the amendment. We know there are many other members uncomfortable with the Liberals. I hope they will have an opportunity

Mr. Wildman: They are uncomfortable with the Liberals.

Mr. Barlow: Most people are uncomfortable with the Liberals, including especially their own members.

I hope those Liberals who have the moral judgement and value that they want to vote against this amendment will not be sick or excused from House duty on that day. We understand many Liberals were concerned about another issue and were absent on the day. That was in regard to the issue of beer and wine in corner stores. About 28 members of the Liberal Party voted on that out of a potential 49 or 50 members, whatever it is now. I am very sincere when I say that I hope the Liberals have a free vote and that those who wish to express an opinion on it are in the House and express that opinion at the appropriate time.

Without reading letters into the record, I feel I have presented the opinion of most of the people of my constituency. I did receive one letter in support of this; it arrived very late last week. I knew this debate was coming forward this week. I did not have a chance to send a letter to the individual who sent me this letter supporting the amendment. I phoned him on the weekend and talked to him. He is a person I have known for years. I know his parents very well. I explained to him what my position was in this matter. He concurred and understood my feeling on this. I said: "I feel you are protected as any other member of society under the Human Rights Code. I do not feel you should have any special recognition or special status in the Human Rights Code." He understood that and incidentally will be out campaigning for me again during the next election.

With those remarks, I rest my case.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Soon after I was elected, the Human Rights Code was introduced in this House; I was a bit jealous that a Conservative government had the honour of doing that. I would be less than fair if I did not point out that it led the other provinces in Canada in establishing the undoubted rights of minorities and others, religious and otherwise, in this province. It was easy to vote in support of it in 1962, although there were still people with residual prejudices that were noticed; they were measurable and vocal. There were even some objections that codifying something such as that was inappropriate and generally not the sort of activity that a Legislature should undertake.

Mr. Frost, as well as Mr. Robarts, deserves a good deal of credit for moving forward with that. I had the honour of speaking in favour of it and voting for it then, and since that time, for each amendment that has come forward on behalf of the government of the day or from the Legislature. I have had an opportunity to make some personal assessment, and in each instance that I can recall I spoke in favour of it and voted for it. I am delighted to be able to do that in this instance as well.

One of the most important reasons for governments, for modern governments in particular, is to recognize our responsibility associated with human rights and to act with a clear move to reinforce them, to strengthen them, to make sure they are understood and not only to declare by law that these rights exist but also to use our best efforts as educationists in the broader sense to see that prejudice is put aside and that a more modern approach to the requirements of a community is understood.

17:50

We have a proud legacy in this province. I must say the Progressive Conservative Party has a proud legacy. It appals me that in this instance so many speeches are made that I view as being against this appropriate expansion and extension of understandable human rights. The idea that the House has not had an appropriate time to discuss this matter, or that the community has not had an appropriate period of time to gather its views and express them through their members, is certainly wrong. The matter has been debated in this House, it has been before the standing committee and I, as one parliamentarian here, reject that argument. We have had plenty of opportunity and --

Mr. Barlow: Closed government; that is what this is all about.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Closure? Good heavens.

Mr. Barlow: Closed government, not closure.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There is not a thing the matter with this process, and I am delighted to be a part of it.

I simply want to express some criticism of many of the Progressive Conservatives who have indicated they are not in support of this extension of human rights, particularly with their great record as a party over these years.

We have a number of grand traditions in Canada and Ontario that we are proud of, but we have some other traditions of, I suppose, ignorance and prejudice of which we are not nearly so proud. The Attorney General, in his excellent speech yesterday, indicated what some of those were. I live in a community that reflects many of those prejudices, and they are not all dead yet by any means.

I recall as a student during the Second World War that Germans were forced off farms in communities in Canada -- German families that had been here for two or three generations. We know what happened to the Japanese on the west coast. There is even a residual prejudice, for example, against English in this community, startling though that may be and even though it is illegal. It is true, and I have even heard it expressed in some kind of backhanded way in this House.

In my own rural community, where I used to walk to school and meet young people on the street, there was not a Jew in our community. There was not a Catholic, believe it or not. When the first Catholic family moved into St. George, we all got on our bikes and drove down to see what they looked like. We have yet to be put to the test on those other matters.

It is quite interesting that the broadmindedness that is not always associated with rural communities has, in my view, grown and strengthened in southwestern Ontario, where my roots are and where I associate myself with the views of the people. But in my own riding, which is a large rural area with very few urban areas -- the town of Paris, with a population of 6,000, is the biggest -- there was very strong antipathy to extending Catholic secondary schools. The concept of improving French-language services is not accepted; I have to defend it, and often am put in the position where I do so.

On election night, when I went down to the headquarters to receive the congratulations and loud applause of the gathered 27 people, there was, as usual, a bunch of good old farmers of Scottish extraction -- we still call them Scotch, which I still think is appropriate -- very strong supporters of me and my father; they always point that out. They were congratulating me, and I said, "I want to congratulate you, because you know that you have voted for beer in the grocery stores and money for Catholic schools." They said, "Bob, we know you are kidding about that."

Ms. Gigantes: And you were.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No, I was not.

One of the things that has enabled me to survive, and I presume the television viewing at this time of the evening is rather low, is that I have been fortunate enough that when I spoke in favour of expansion of the Catholic school system, for example, I suppose many of these people just could not believe I intended to do that. This has now been fulfilled. As a matter of fact, I do not recall ever convincing anyone of the usefulness and efficacy of those changes except one person, and that was Bill Davis. When he got a change of heart, then it happened; and members know those motions of the Legislature that accomplished that and all the interesting ancillary developments.

We have all received letters and phone calls. My first call came this morning at 5:45. One of my neighbours wanted to be sure to get me before he went out to the barn. He knew I left early, and he wanted to express his views, which were not entirely parallel to my own. In a very nice way, he made the usual threat, which is probably more than a threat, that he certainly was not supporting me on this and would therefore not be able to support me in an election. That may happen, and it is something we must concern ourselves with. However, I do not think it is even on the scale with trying to make an objective assessment of a matter that is surely one of the most important we as members of this Legislature ever face; that is, the rights of our fellow man.

In that instance, we have to assess all the ramifications. We have had it carefully described to us by some of the best speakers anywhere that we are not changing the Criminal Code, and we are not subjecting young or old people to any threats that are not very real at present; it changes that not at all. It simply recognizes that there are people in this province whose human rights are not protected. This bill and this amendment aims to protect those human rights.

I am very honoured to be able to rise and speak in favour of the amendment, and when the proper time comes, I will vote in favour of that amendment. I simply ask my good friends in the Progressive Conservative Party to think of their traditions and the views their fathers and mothers held in a previous generation on some other matters that have been protected. Perhaps those views were somewhat unreconstructed, based on fear -- shall I say ignorance? -- and we are glad we have moved away and on from that. I am not sure this is exactly the same kind of test. There are those who will be quick to say it is not the same kind of test. My opinion is, it is the same kind of test; it deals with human rights.

As individuals elected to this House, we have the opportunity to review the alternatives. We have the responsibility to reject fear, particularly the kind of fear that is based on something less than a full understanding or even a Christian understanding of the needs of other people and ourselves in this community. Therefore, I have no doubt in my own mind what is right to do, and I will be delighted to support my leader and most of my colleagues in voting for this amendment.

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

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: While it was intended that we do a committee report tomorrow, I expect there will be agreement that it will be appropriate for us to continue with this debate.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

26 novembre 1986