Journal des débats 1986-déc-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Stevenson: The winter 1986 issue of Seasons, a magazine published by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, had a good summary article about Lake Simcoe, entitled Troubled Waters. The article discusses problems associated with phosphorus loadings of the lake, associated weed and algae growth and decomposition, and the resultant oxygen depletion in the water.

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

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

TRANSITION HOMES

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

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

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

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

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

NATIONAL SAFE DRIVING WEEK

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

GOVERNMENT'S PERFORMANCE

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

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

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

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

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

FLOODING

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

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

ARTS FUNDING

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

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

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

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

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

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

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

GREY CUP GAME

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

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

13:41

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are some of its major features:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

13:50

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Very briefly, I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Health. This is almost the final step in a very long process. Some of the difficulties in the Ontario drug benefit plan came out many years ago through the Provincial Auditor, and to the minister's credit, he decided action would be taken to solve some of those problems. However, when we got the bill, it went through an incredibly long process in which all members of the committee played a very active role. I am somewhat proud that basic or important aspects of the bill, the best available price and the negotiating process for a dispensing fee, the amendments that this party put forward, carried in committee.

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

We are pleased that the formulary has been published.

IDEA CORP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOVERNMENT INVENTORIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Callahan: Come on, Larry.

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

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

14:12

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question that relates to the very issue the Minister of Health has been speaking about for ever so long this past year, which is accessibility to the health care system.

The minister will know that he spent a great deal of time, effort and goodwill that he had to trade off in seeking to ensure what he considered accessibility through Bill 94. However, the real accessibility problem is being faced by heart patients at the Toronto General Hospital.

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

Can the minister tell us what steps he has already taken to ensure accessibility to heart surgery at Toronto General Hospital over the past several months?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can the minister say he has done nothing to attract nurses, to increase their remuneration, to set up a fund to attract them, as he is willing to attract doctors? How can he stand there today and say he has done nothing to deal with this accessibility problem through all the long months?

14:20

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

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

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

IDEA CORP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

Mr. McClellan: There is the old blackmailer.

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

14:30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSITION HOMES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: This past summer, a member of my staff went around to every one of the transition houses and asked exactly what the needs were, based upon the assessment of the front-line people who are actually working in those houses. One of the first recommendations was additional funds for the children while they were in a house. Until now, the recommendation had been that those children should use other community services, such as children's aid societies and children's mental health centres; but the recommendation was that the money should flow directly to the houses, so they could help the children while they were in a house. That money has been allocated to our area offices and will be allocated to the centres. That is the recommendation that was made to us, and that is the one that is going to be met.

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

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

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

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

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Health, and it pertains once again to the question of health care accessibility. The minister knows of the very serious threat to the lives of children between the ages of two and five from the hemophilus B bacteria, which can cause meningitis and severe forms of croup. He will know about this because it was raised with him by my colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) in February 1986, and we are still waiting for his response, 10 months later. Will the minister tell us the status of distribution of the vaccine and the instruction and advice he is offering public health officials across Ontario?

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

14:40

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

Surely, to further improve the whole aspect of health care accessibility, the $15 cost of the vaccine should be included under the health insurance plan, as is the case with other vaccines that are used in immunization programs. In our estimate, the cost would be less than $2 million a year. Surely the minister can make that exception right away, before we get into the season when this type of flu bacteria becomes very prevalent.

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

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

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

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

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

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

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

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

IDEA CORP.

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

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

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

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

An hon. member: Oh, come on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DAY CARE

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

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

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

14:50

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

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

IDEA CORP.

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

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

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

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

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

RETIREMENT SAVINGS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Treasurer, who I believe is still the minister in charge of pension policy. He will know that the federal government has now released application forms for the Canada pension plan that include, for the first time, a section on the form, "When do you wish your retirement pension to begin?" As one of the architects of these changes to the Canada pension plan -- it was a federal-provincial initiative and Ontario had to exercise its approval for voluntary early retirement from age 60 under the Canada pension plan -- my question to the Treasurer is this: at a maximum benefit of $340 per month or $4,080 a year in early retirement benefits under the Canada pension plan, how many people in this province does the Treasurer think will actually be able to retire at age 60?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HAMILTON HEALTH CENTRE

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

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

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

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

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

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

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

15:00

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

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

RETIREMENT SAVINGS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have another question for the Treasurer with regard to pensions. My colleague raised the question of early retirement and the Treasurer indicated some workers may have built up some assets that would allow them to retire early. The Treasurer will be aware that if they have early retirement bridging arrangements under the private plans, they will lose most of that money if they take advantage of early retirement under the Canada pension plan. When I asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) about this on October 22, he indicated he would talk to the Treasurer and the appropriate minister and get back to us as to whether they were prepared to look at closing this loophole. Can he tell us where we stand at the moment?

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

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

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

ADULT EDUCATION

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

Mr. Davis: Go ahead; tell us again.

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

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

Mr. Ashe: We read your press releases.

Mr. Davis: We read your press releases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am still waiting.

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

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

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

Mr. Rowe: Look who is back.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Pope: What does that mean?

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

SUNDAY TRADING

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

15:10

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

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

Interjections.

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

RACE RELATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

PETITIONS

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

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

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

"Cependant, les numéros 1 à 5 de la section 18, m'inquiètent beaucoup! Ce projet de loi consistant à modifier le Code des droits de l'homme, mentionne les `orientations sexuelles' de la personne.

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

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

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

"C'est pourquoi, bien cher Monsieur le Député, je vous demande de faire les recherches nécessaires et de voir à faire clarifier et corriger les points 1 à 5 de cette section 18 du projet de loi `omnibus' numéro 7. La loi ne peut pas rendre légale l'homosexualité active avec toutes les conséquences que cela entraînerait."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Do you have something further?

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

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

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

Mr. Pollock: I wish to table a petition.

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

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

It is signed by 58 people.

I have another petition, which reads:

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

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

It is signed by 152 people.

I have another petition.

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

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

Another petition reads:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

The last petition reads:

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

"We, the undersigned members of the community of Belleville and district, beg leave to petition the government of Ontario, whereas we wish to express our strong dissatisfaction with the government introducing legislation which will include `sexual orientation' in the Human Rights Code, section 18 of Bill 7.

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

It is signed by 58 people.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

15:20

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

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

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEETING

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

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INFLATION RESTRAINT AND PUBLIC SECTOR PRICES AND COMPENSATION REVIEW REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 163, An Act to repeal the Inflation Restraint Act and the Public Sector Prices and Compensation Review Act.

Motion agreed to.

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

FARM LOANS AND FARM LOANS ADJUSTMENT REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 164, An Act to repeal the Farm Loans Act and the Farm Loans Adjustment Act.

Motion agreed to.

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

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sweeney moved first reading of Bill 165, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and Certain Other Acts in relation to Adoption Disclosure.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF NORTH BAY ACT

Mr. Harris moved first reading of Bill Pr40, An Act respecting the City of North Bay.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

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

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

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

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

The point I was leaving with the Attorney General was that I did not see the point he was making. I did not know whether the Attorney General was saying that one can discriminate with respect to housing and employment on the basis of a criminal conviction, that one can discriminate with respect to housing and employment on the basis of an allegation of criminal conduct or on just what basis the Attorney General was linking an offence under the Criminal Code to the provisions for employment and housing under his amendments to the Human Rights Code. I do not believe the distinction the Attorney General wants us to accept as his rationale for not worrying about this issue is necessarily the correct one.

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

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

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

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

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

15:30

I want to refer to an article written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to reiterate that I disagree with the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). I do not think the people who have expressed concern over these amendments are the voices of intolerance in our society. I do not think the Big Brothers are the voices of intolerance; they are a caring group of individuals trying to help children. I do not think the Boy Scouts are the voices of intolerance; they have a long history of service to all society. I do not think organized religions and church groups are the voices of intolerance; they have a great deal of concern about the moral questions they confront in their daily lives and they want to see those concerns reflected in this debate and in dealing with these kinds of issues. We all have an obligation to do that. I know members from all three parties will be doing that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a child in the 1940s and 1950s, I was aware of the terrible prejudice against homosexuals. In our schoolyards, we kids used the hate words we learned from older children, who in turn learned them from adults. In 1963, however, I was confronted for the first time in my life with a real example of discrimination against homosexuals. At that time, I was the director of day camping for a small southwestern Ontario municipality. I received a phone call. The phone call was, as one might expect, anonymous. The woman on the other end of the telephone wanted me to know that the assistant director of one of my camps was a homosexual. The woman wanted me to fire that individual. I took all this in and asked her whether she was concerned that the assistant director of a particular camp was going to harm the children. She said: "No. That is not the point. He is a homosexual and he must be fired." Clearly the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia was not important to my caller.

I have run in elections that were festooned with hate literature against homosexuals. In 1980 and 1982, I was targeted by Positive Parents. Its leader, a man named Stew Newton, used to refer to me as a member of the homosexual New Democratic Party caucus. I suffered the not-so-tender mercies of Campaign Life and Renaissance Ontario. I assume the reasons for such attention were (a) my support of John Sewell in his mayoralty bid in 1980; (b) my support of a call for an inquiry into the raids on the bathhouses in 1981; and (c) my support for legislation prohibiting discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

15:40

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

My daughter is 16 years old today. I will pass along the good wishes of the members to her. As I was fulminating around the kitchen about this debate, she offered me her advice. I find her advice very useful. She said to me, "They must be very afraid, which is why they are feeling so hateful." I thought about that. Perhaps she is right. I have encountered various kinds of prejudice in the work that I have done as a politician over many years. One can often trace that prejudice, be it racial prejudice, religious prejudice, prejudice against people of differing sexual orientation or prejudice against disabled people for goodness' sake, back to some kind of fear, some kind of grieving that the world is changing and that the world sometimes seems out of control, some kind of hurt that this is so. The fear, the grieving and the hurt sometimes roll up into a ball of hate, because hate is a very focused thing. It is a very sharp thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15:50

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

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

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

The Attorney General spoke of signs displayed in our society 100 years ago. It was less than 100 years ago that we had those awful signs in this very city. We had restrictions on deeds and covenants. I know, because I saw them in my life as a title searcher and I saw them as a child some 35 years ago when I first learned to read. One generation ago, individual law-abiding citizens in this province had to change their names to get teaching jobs and had to leave this province to get an education. My aunt, an outstanding teacher, had to change her name to get a teaching job. Another aunt, who wanted to become a nurse, had to leave this province to get her education. In those years, some businesses, even banks, had policies not to hire anyone, no matter how qualified, from certain groups and certain classes. Unfounded fear, prejudice, stereotypical perception and ugly caricatures created an unjust and unequal society.

We in this House cannot legislate an end to bigotry. We cannot legislate an end to prejudice. We can, however, make legislative statements and as legislators use this forum to tell the truth and expel unfounded fears. We should use this forum to promote the end of the discriminating barriers in our free society. We want a civilized and humane society that treats individuals, law-abiding, taxpaying, honest citizens, equally under the law. That has been our goal for many years, and progress has been slow. This debate -- and I say this with much sadness -- has not done that. We all know or should know that we are not condoning, encouraging or supporting a lifestyle. This should not be a debate that morally evaluates the lifestyle of others. We are not here either to condone or to condemn. We are offering no special protection, no special treatment, no special favours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denying any minority group these basic human rights does not enhance our traditional moral societal values. It not only mocks those values but also tarnishes all that we cherish in this land of freedom. Perhaps the day will come when other minority groups not currently listed will be identified. Perhaps they will be bureaucrats or journalists or politicians and thus require this kind of future clarification. That is really what we are doing: clarifying our Human Rights Code. We have said it all in our charter; our Ontario Human Rights Code just clarifies it. Hence, it is a reminder. Being excluded from our code suggests an exemption that I believe was never intended to be the case. It is certainly not the case in our charter when it speaks of classes of persons.

16:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are being asked to give a group in society the benefit of the doubt under the Human Rights Code. At the same time, however, it is risky; the risk is that we would cast doubt on the views of others. In my conversations with people who are both gay and not, they have all suggested that the amendment will not stop gay-bashing. It will give a measure of comfort to the gay community that gays do perhaps enjoy some more distinct status under the Human Rights Code, but how do you enshrine tolerance into a law?

If the member for St. David (Mr. Scott), the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Riverdale, or any other member of this Legislature, were to come in here with an amendment that would give the Human Rights Code real force, without enumerating the interest groups, without making gender distinction, without making racial distinction or any other form of distinction, simply to say that this code will apply to all people equally, fairly across the province, that would give real force to the law. That would allow us to speak very clearly and forcefully of tolerance for all people.

Mr. McCague: I welcome this opportunity to say a few words with regard to the sexual orientation amendment proposed in Bill 7. In my constituency, I have 12 newspapers to which I submit news columns to inform my constituents of forthcoming legislation. In September, I sent an article to the newspapers informing my constituents that some time during this fall session the members of the Legislature would be dealing with the sexual orientation amendment to Bill 7.

In the article, I expressed the opinion that homosexuals in Ontario currently have the same rights as other citizens. Inclusion of sexual orientation in the Human Rights Code is not about equal rights at all but about special status. Homosexuals want a right that heterosexuals do not have; they want to coerce others into not taking into account their inclination to practise their prevailing preference, even when those others, who include parents, employers or landlords, have contrary convictions.

The result is an expansion of the privileges given to homosexuals and a shrinking of the rights of other citizens. Homosexuals enjoy the same freedoms of conscience and religion, expression and association. They have the same access to education and health care and the same commercial rights to contract or not to contract with others for goods and services, subject to some antidiscrimination laws, as is everyone else. They are protected by the Charter of Rights and the existing Human Rights Code in Ontario and enjoy the same equal protection and benefits of all statutory and common law rights and remedies. In other words, homosexuals already have all the rights and freedoms enjoyed by other Canadians. The freedom of association valued by all Ontarians includes the corollary right to nonassociation.

16:10

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, which accommodates both interests.

This amendment would entrench in law the idea that homosexuality and homosexual relations are as morally valid a way to organize family units in society as are heterosexual relationships. Today homosexuality is seen by some in the community as an equally legitimate, attractive alternative lifestyle to heterosexuality. If passed, this amendment would mean that in addition to the rights shared by everyone, homosexuals would have special rights, recognizing in law their lifestyle and behaviour.

Homosexuals want official recognition and social acceptance of a lifestyle that is morally offensive to a significant number of Ontarians. They want the same recognition and protections accorded to racial and religious groups and other legitimate minorities, not because of some unchangeable or morally neutral characteristic, but because of sexual conduct.

No other minority group is protected by the Human Rights Code based on behaviour. Canada's Charter of Rights protects citizens on the basis of identity, not behaviour. Alcoholics and compulsive gamblers do not qualify for such protections, and neither should homosexuals.

Canada's Charter of Rights states that everyone has the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, sex, religion and age. It refers to discrimination on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation. The first is true discrimination; the latter is not discrimination at all.

Sexual orientation refers to an optional lifestyle, whereas sex refers to the inherent characteristics of being male or female. The Ontario Human Rights Code was never intended to give a social blessing to immorality. The classes it protects are all morally neutral. No moral fault is attached to being black or white, a native or an immigrant, a male or a female. The sheer moral innocence of the victim of discrimination has made the case for such laws compelling. Part of the wisdom of the Human Rights Code is to focus only on groups that all agree are morally neutral. Without such a focus, social support for such legislation could crumble.

I believe this amendment is the first step of many, which will eventually lead to the recognition of legalized homosexual marriages and homosexuals' adoption of children. It is part of a long-term plan of a well-organized pressure group.

Last year the city of Toronto politicians rushed to extend tax-subsidized health care coverage to nontraditional family members of all city workers, benefits to the same-sex lovers of male and female homosexual city employees. A Toronto city solicitor told councillors they may well be held personally liable for added costs of benefits. He informed them that under the Ontario Municipal Act, paragraph 44, section 208, domestic partnerships for benefit coverage is limited to wives and husbands.

The city hall politicians are now in a catch 22 situation. The city of Toronto council had no legal authority to extend health coverage, nor the right to throw family relationships out the window.

If the sexual orientation amendment recognizing homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle to heterosexuality passes, how could the Legislature deny the city of Toronto an amendment to change the Municipal Act or not provide the city of Toronto with special legislation in order that individual councillors would not be liable for the expanded health benefits? There should be no doubt in our minds; it is a step in that direction.

The Toronto Public Library Board, for instance, as part of its no discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation policy, already arranges insurance coverage for one-sex families.

To suggest that sexual orientation included in the Human Rights Code would not entrench in law the idea that homosexuality and homosexual relations are as morally valid a way to organize family units in society as are heterosexual relationships is nonsense. That is exactly the message that would be sent.

It has been argued that to add sexual orientation to human rights legislation is neither to condone nor to legitimize homosexuality. In their book, An Introduction to Government and Politics, A Conceptual Approach, Dickerson and Flanagan drew a fundamental distinction between legitimacy and authority. Authority has to do with the right to command or make laws; legitimacy has to do with a response by the governed to those commands or laws. Both are moral or ethical concepts as well as political concepts; that is they involve perception of right and wrong.

Government power without legitimacy, without substantial public support, is only coercion or force. Public authority survives only as long as it has substantial legitimacy in society. Ordinary men and women look to law and government to provide a foundation of justice and morality. It is the moral power of our society that will cause it to survive. As we destroy that, the rest will fall.

Traditionally, the issue of the right of members of the same sex to marry has met with a fundamental obstacle wherever it has been tried in Canada, the United States and Britain. Simply put, a marriage between man and man or woman and woman is not a marriage. No marriage exists. By definition, marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of others.

The argument most often put forward by the gay community in support of their right to homosexual marriages is this: as long as marriage is a convention that carries legal and financial advantages, homosexuals should be permitted by law to enjoy those advantages equally with heterosexuals. In short, it is an argument based on equal rights.

I argue that homosexuals have all the rights and freedoms enjoyed by heterosexuals in our contemporary society. Is this an example that it is not so? Not at all. Two heterosexual room-mates of the same sex have no better right to marriage in order to benefit from the tax advantage than do homosexuals. There is no discrimination there based on sexual orientation. Any differential in treatment of traditional marriage partners is based on sound policy and biological reality, not discrimination.

Homosexual marriage would be harmful to family life and would be socially undesirable. It is true that the mounting demands and pressures of contemporary life have put almost unbearable stress on the family. The family is the fundamental mediating structure of our society. It ought not to be surprising that the shocks and upheavals of our contemporary culture would be absorbed or deflected by the family in the rough and tumble of daily life. However, after all that, the family remains the essential building block of society, and its continued resilience in the face of impossible economic and social tensions is a hallmark of its preservation.

Equality and freedom are really a question of balance. Once again, it is a fundamental principle of law that every right implies a corresponding duty. For example, we have seen that if a homosexual has the right to teach sex education classes in a public school, the school has a corresponding duty to allow him to do so, and the parent of a child in that school loses the right to say anything about it. The parent of that child loses not only his right but also his moral duty to scrutinize the moral character and conduct of those into whose charge the child is committed.

16:20

To use the coercive powers of law to force ordinary people to violate their conscience or religious convictions by compelling them to abandon their moral parental duty or to enter into significant social contact with others whose moral character and conduct they object to is fundamentally repugnant to the constitutional freedoms of conscience and religion. If the Ontario Human Rights Code is amended to include sexual orientation, many Ontario citizens will be forced to act in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their beliefs and conscience. This amendment will coerce men and women of bona fide religious conviction to violate their consciences. Homosexual behaviour is morally repugnant to a large number of people of varying religious traditions.

Such laws might compel churches, religious schools or other religious organizations to hire a person whose sexual practices contradict their religious doctrines. They could force those groups to adopt costly affirmative action programs and to hire people who practise behaviour morally repugnant to their religious beliefs. They could force religious organizations that run battered women's shelters, temporary housing for the homeless, soup kitchens or day care centres to hire homosexuals in violation of church doctrine or lose government funding of their operations.

Those who make judgements based on perceived moral character are placed in a hopeless predicament by such laws. The threat of legal sanctions presents such a person with Hobson's choice, violate conscience or violate the law.

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 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, on the contrary, is essentially antifamily. The law has every right to discourage people from entering into paths that are demonstrably destructive, physically and psychologically, first to the homosexuals and then to society.

There is a tendency in public policy today to sacrifice freedom to equality in the pursuit of human rights. In an incisive and important article, Professor Ian Hunter of the faculty of law, University of Western Ontario, notes that a willingness to permit this sacrifice may be a characteristic of liberal democracy, an instrument to the secularization of contemporary Canadian society. He warns, quite rightly, that we must reflect carefully on the cost in human freedom that our endless pursuit of equality exacts.

This issue addresses some of the most difficult moral and religious concerns of Ontarians. That being so, this government has failed to allow Ontarians thoughtful public debate and scrutiny by not allowing public hearings on this important matter.

The member for Ottawa Centre points out that a 1985 Gallup poll indicated that 69 per cent of Ontario citizens support legislation such as her amendment to Bill 7. From letters I have received from constituents in my riding, talking to them on the telephone and having conversations in person, I cannot accept those figures. My observations lead me to an opposite conclusion. While polls are useful, they are not always what they seem.

I received a letter from the Coalition for Gay Rights in Ontario in July urging me to support the amendment. The letter stated: "According to the last Gallup poll, the majority of Ontarians, 69 per cent, indeed the majority of Canadians, are in favour of prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation." Since that did not coincide with what I was hearing, I decided to look into the matter, and here is what I found.

The poll was conducted from September 12 to September 14 in personal interviews with 1,043 adults more than 18 years old in 105 enumeration areas across Canada and chosen at random. The poll was carried out by Gallup for a legal firm, with the financing coming from the gay community of Peel of Toronto. The group is working under a grant from the federal Department of Justice to examine the legal dimensions of discrimination against gay men and women in the context of the Charter of Rights.

Here is the question that was asked: "Federal and provincial human rights codes make it illegal to discriminate against people in employment, accommodation and services because of race, colour, religion, age, sex and so on. In Quebec, it is also illegal to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation, that is, heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. Most human rights commissions in Canada have recommended making discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. Do you agree with their recommendations?"

The question, the way it was phrased, suggests that homosexuality and bisexuality are recognized as alternative lifestyles. It does not say how many human rights commissions make the recommendation. Quebec is the only province that has sexual orientation in its code. To suggest that homosexuality and bisexuality have the same status in law as heterosexuality is misleading, to say the least. I have laid out a scenario that suggests that the Bill 7 amendment is the first step on the long road to recognizing homosexual marriages, along with the adoption of children. No one should take pride in immoral behaviour, but is it not worse to encourage another to take pride in behaviour that is destroying him or her?

A fundamental principle of democracy is to provide for public input. The Premier chose in the past, on Bill 30, the extension of separate school funding, to have extensive public hearings, which took 321 hours. The standing committee on administration of justice sat for eight months on Bill 7 hearing submissions from both sides on this controversial issue. On the sexual orientation amendment to Bill 7, there was not one hour of public hearings.

Does a tolerant, modern society deny citizens their right to public input? Why does the Premier not withdraw Bill 7, rewrite it without the sexual orientation amendment and return it to the House, where it could be passed in one day? Put the sexual orientation amendment in a new bill, reintroduce it and send it to a committee for public hearings. Democracy takes time.

I cannot support this amendment under the current circumstances.

Mr. Callahan: I have listened attentively to the debate. I have listened to the views of those who spoke in a harsh fashion and of those who spoke in a sensitive fashion. I hope all of those members spoke from their considered opinion as opposed to perhaps the question of political expediency.

Mr. Davis: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman: I would ask the member to reconsider that statement. I believe anybody who speaks in this Legislature on this issue speaks from his heart and from his beliefs, not for political reasons.

Mr. Callahan: I can tell members quite candidly that I have spent five to 10 days agonizing over the decision on how I would vote in this matter. I have had considerable difficulty sleeping. I started from the point where I was voting against it. Thereafter, I am going to vote for it. I would like to indicate why I am going to vote for it.

Some of the objections I have received purport to come from people who put this on a religious basis. My God --

Mr. Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I would ask the honourable member whether he would retract what he said about the other members who are speaking in the House. I have not spoken yet, but I intend to speak and I would like that stricken from the record. It is not becoming to the member. If he wants to get to cabinet, that is one way, but that is not the route to get there.

16:30

Mr. Callahan: If that is the intellectual level to which one can accuse a member of speaking for or against the matter, I take exception to that.

Many of the arguments have been put on a religious level.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Callahan: As I was trying to point out, in my life and, I hope, in the life of the citizens of this province, God looks at human beings as being those people made in His image and likeness. He does not necessarily apply a test of whether or not one is a drunkard, a criminal or a homosexual. Surely to heaven we do not just leave these people out to dry.

Mr. Shymko: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: It is truly unfair to list homosexuals in the category of criminals and drunks. I object to this.

The Deputy Chairman: This is not a point of order.

Mr. Callahan: The point I am trying to make is that human beings are of tremendous value regardless of what society may dislike or like about the way they carry on their lives. The fact is that we are dealing with human beings. There are a large number of homosexuals and lesbians currently living in society in Ontario, Canada, the United States and all over the world.

What do we do? Do we simply turn a blind eye to that fact and say that these people are nonentities and that they are not going to be given the liberties or protections provided under the Human Rights Code for other people? I have had two experiences in my professional career where I have seen qualified people discharged for the simple reason that they were homosexual. If that happens to one person, it is unacceptable.

In addition to that, how do we know what the effects of our parenthood will be on our own children? How can we be sure that one or more of them will not become lesbians or homosexuals? If that were to happen, how would a parent react to the fact that his child or children were homosexuals? How would they ever achieve rights for those children? Would those children be left out in the cold? I suggest that this issue has to be approached very sensitively.

Surely to heaven the argument being put forward by particular religions that this is agreeing with a lifestyle has no foundation whatsoever. The reality is accepting the fact that those people are there, that they are human beings and that they have to be dealt with fairly and sensitively. It concerns me gravely when I find that for some reason people seem to think the God they and I have looks upon these people as being different. He looks upon all of them as being human beings.

Mrs. Marland: You had better read the Old Testament.

Mr. Callahan: To answer my friend the member for Mississauga South, the New Testament --

Mr. Chairman: Order please. This is not question period. Please continue.

Mr. Callahan: Surely to heaven there is the recognition of the fact that there was a thief who, in the dying moments of his life, was recognized as a human being worth saving; in fact, most of the people my Lord hung around with were people not of a respectable nature but people who were perhaps looked upon by society as outcasts. Those very factors were the things I had to consider.

I had to consider whether I could simply ignore those people, turn a blind eye to the fact that they were there and not recognize their rights. For that reason, and after listening carefully to many of the arguments that have been put forward, I will be voting in favour of Bill 7.

Mr. Pierce: It is a pleasure for me to stand up to speak in opposition to the inclusion of the amendment in Bill 7. For the benefit of the members in the House, I can assure them that I am speaking as my conscience tells me and not as somebody else has told me. I am also speaking on behalf of the people who elected me to represent them in the district of Rainy River. As have other members of the House, I have received many letters and petitions in opposition to the amendment. The only letters I have received in favour of the inclusion of the amendment have not come from within my riding. Not only do I speak with my conscience, but I also speak for the people who elected me to represent them.

Very briefly, for the sake of the record, I would like to read some of the letters and correspondence I received. A number of them are written with a lot of emotion.

This is one from a constituent in Atikokan:

"I am writing to commend you on your stand against sexual orientation in Ontario's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The people who have put forward this proposed amendment are either extremely naïve or extremely evil." She goes on to make reference to other parts of the act.

Another constituent from Emo, a small community outside of Fort Frances, writes:

"I strongly oppose Bill 7, section 18, subsections 1 to 5. It is not acceptable for the government to amend this legislation so as to give homosexuals the status of families in our society." She goes on.

Through my riding offices, I did a personal survey of the churches represented throughout the communities. Of the churches that responded, 11 were opposed to the inclusion of sexual orientation and one was in favour. In another community, all three churches were opposed.

As I said in my opening remarks, I received numerous petitions. Sometimes the news does not travel as quickly in northwestern Ontario as it does in eastern Ontario. There are a lot of people who do not know that this amendment has been proposed. I note with interest the articles in the newspaper by individual unions that are strongly in favour of the inclusion of the amendment in the bill, and yet I have a petition signed by 13 people from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 795, health care workers in the La Verendrye General Hospital in Fort Frances, in opposition to the amendment to Bill 7.

This is contrary to what a number of the unions are saying. They say they represent all their members throughout the province and that they will not tolerate discrimination for any reason, and that is the reason the amendment should be included in the bill.

Another letter from Barwick reads:

"I would like to express to you that I strongly oppose Bill 7, section 18. I do not believe that this legislation should be passed."

Another petition from a group of people in Fort Frances strongly urged that I stand up in the House and oppose the inclusion of the amendment in Bill 7. Another letter from a constituent in Emo reads:

"I oppose Bill 7 section 18, subsections 1 to 5. It is not acceptable for the government to amend this legislation so as to give homosexuals the status of families in our society."

16:40

I note with interest that the letters I have received are all handwritten. None of the letters I received in opposition is a photostated copy or copies of circulated letters.

I have a letter from Emo which says the same thing: "I oppose the inclusion of section 18 in Bill 7."

I have a letter from Stratton, Ontario: "My vote is XX no to legislating homosexuals as a family unit."

It is not my role to take up a lot of the time of the Legislature, but I can assure members I will be voting in opposition to the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Ontario Human Rights Code. I will be voting as my conscience dictates and as the people of my district have asked me to do.

Mr. Wiseman: I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on this important amendment.

The people of Lanark, whom I have had the privilege to represent for more than 15 years, have sent a clear message to me that they are opposed to subsections 18(1) to 18(5). I have had many letters and phone calls. Many people have come up to me at different functions to let me know how they feel on this subject. Every time I have had an opportunity to speak in my riding, I have asked that people come up to me after or give me a phone call later to let me know their views on this, if they did not want to say them during the meeting. Other than letters from organized groups, I have never had one that I am aware of to my constituency office, my Toronto office or my home that was in favour of this section of the bill.

I would like to clarify something. We received copies of a letter saying the United Church of Canada, of which I am a member, an elder and a trustee in the town of Perth, is in favour of the sexual orientation provisions of section 18. After I read that letter, which was sent to our Premier, I phoned to find out where the United Church of Canada got the authority to speak on behalf of all its members. The person who had sent the letter in the first place was not there, but they did give me the name and number of the moderator of the United Church. This was the former moderator, before the last council met to elect the new lady moderator.

I called the former moderator long-distance in Vancouver and talked to him for about 20 minutes on this subject. I found out this was done by the social committee of the United Church of Canada, which is made up of the moderator and four or five individuals. I asked him whether he ever did a poll of the churches to see whether they were in favour of the stand these four, five or six people were taking on behalf of the United Church of Canada. He asked me, "Do you do polls in your riding to see what stand you should take?" I said: "I hope I do and I hope I have on any issue people want to get in touch with me on. I try to reflect that in my caucus, in here or wherever; and bring the views across."

My own church, of which I am an elder and a trustee, is opposed. Our ministers are trying to have special meetings to try to enlighten the people, both for and against. However, it is not the case for the people in the pews or the majority of the United Church ministers that the stand the former moderator of the United Church has taken is the stand those people want him to take. I understand that the new moderator, when she was first elected, made a statement similar to that of the outgoing moderator; but since that time, I am told by many, she has moderated her position. What it is now I am not just certain, but she is talking to ladies' groups and different groups within the church, and I understand she has softened her position quite a little bit.

I understand from some very good friends and ministers or priests in the Anglican Church that there is a similar situation within that church. That church, I understand, has sent a letter saying it is in favour of section 18 of Bill 7. I am told by very good friends and, as I mentioned before, by ministers, priests or whatever you want to call their clergy, that it is not speaking on behalf of the people in the pews or the majority of the ministers within that church.

Like the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce), I have done a survey of all the clergy within my riding. I found that 60 per cent were opposed and 40 per cent were in favour. However, when I talked to those 40 per cent, they said their belief was that this bill would be broken down into two sections. One would cover the situation in which homosexuals are in a position to influence young people -- that is, brownies, cubs, scouts, in schools or as ministers.

To go back to the United Church of Canada again, it is not prepared to deal and has not dealt with whether homosexuals can be ordained into the United Church of Canada, and it will not do so -- they are studying it -- until the council meets in 1988.

Most of the 40 per cent of the ministers who felt that, for many other reasons some were in favour of this legislation, like the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) have said they felt this would be in two sections, one of which would isolate homosexuals from young people who still could be influenced by those people. I was telling them that this really was not the case, and then they said to me, "Why do you not bring through an amendment that would put it into two sections?" They have no problem, once a person comes of age, for that person to make up his or her mind about whether to become a homosexual or a lesbian or to be influenced by a person to go that way, but in no way does the majority of that 40 per cent ever want them in a place of influence.

When I heard the member for Cochrane South read some of letters last Thursday and quote what my friend the current Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) had said when he was a back-bencher sitting on this side as Agriculture and Food critic, some of the things he said at that time are very much the way I feel today.

I thought, "Gosh, that is me." I have no hangups with their having rights when it comes to accommodation or when people are old enough to make up their own minds. I believe this is what the member for Cochrane South read into the record and the letters he had and going back to the Hansards of what the Minister of Agriculture and Food had said.

Before this debate ends, I hope the Minister of Agriculture and Food will come in and share with the rest of us what changed his mind. I sincerely hope he is not doing it against his conscience in order to remain in cabinet. I am really pleased that on this side of the House our leader and our caucus decided to have a free vote and to let our conscience be our guide. The Treasurer is smiling --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I always smile when I look at you.

Mr. Wiseman: I hope one who carries so much influence over there and runs the whole government practically by himself will allow that to happen whenever this vote takes place.

16:50

There are two examples I would like to put on the record today that scare the dickens out of me. One of them happened some time ago, but the court case was last week in Lanark county. We had a man who admitted to abusing two young boys sexually and he was given only three years' suspended sentence because of the youths' ages.

The papers are checking this out, because usually if it is someone other than a member of the family -- if it is a member of the family, they usually do not give out that information. I am sure with a suspended sentence most of us know that means a slap on the wrist. I spoke to the Attorney General and he is going to check into this further, but I think all members of this Legislature will agree that three years' suspended sentence for something like that is not very much of a deterrent. It certainly does not send a signal out there that we will not tolerate this sort of action.

I said to two or three people I spoke to this afternoon that if it had been two little girls who were molested by a man, that person would have got a penitentiary sentence. I am sure that something will happen with those two young boys. They will have to live with that and perhaps even have some psychiatric treatment to straighten them out in the future.

Mr. Martel: You have not been reading the same material I have. They have not even charged him.

Mr. Wiseman: Yes. The second example I have is an example of just what I have said. This concerns a lady, a mature woman now. In her own household, her mother's best friend, a lady, a good churchgoer, the whole bit, molested her as a young person. Her mother would not believe her. She is now married, but has had psychiatric treatment since that. She says it was about 20 years before she got her mind straightened out.

In the case of the two little boys, it is going to take a long time. A slap on the wrist is not enough for that person, when he admitted to it. He will walk away free. The people out in society do not even know who he is, but those kids, in their minds, will.

My parents, like most parents of members of this Legislature, brought us up and instilled certain morals in us four boys and one girl. I hope I have instilled the same morals into my two boys and one girl and that they have into my grandchildren. I have certain religious beliefs. I am United Church and I have certain beliefs that do not coincide with the leaders of that church, the four or five people, but do coincide with the majority of the people within my church. I feel I have been influenced by the people I represent to vote the way I will, which happens to agree with my feelings on this matter.

If the government of the day wanted to bring through something that I believe could be supported by the majority of the people, if the bill was broken down so that it said there should be no discrimination against people in terms of accommodation and employment, unless they were in a place of influence where they could influence young people to their way of thinking, I think we would not go through all of this and there would probably be a majority of people who would vote for it.

If what I hear is right, a couple of the members opposite may break ranks in the New Democratic Party. I understand from the people across the floor that there are quite a few government members wrestling with their consciences. I hope the Treasurer, who is smiling again, will talk to the Premier and let members vote according to their conscience whenever this vote takes place. Maybe if it is voted down, they will bring it back in a form similar to what I mentioned.

Mr. Shymko: I am very pleased to participate in one of the most important debates we have had in this Legislature for many years. The importance of this debate is not because of the conceptions or misconceptions that surround the issue, but fundamentally because, at least in the years that I have been a member of this Legislature, I do not recall -- and I sit on the standing committee on regulations and private bills where issues such as line fencing are discussed, where various minor pieces of legislation are introduced and we allow for witnesses, we allow for members of the public, be it from the region where the bill may be affecting them, be it from any part of the province where a major piece of legislation may be impacting, to appear democratically, equally in the process of legislation and the legislative parliamentary process we have in place -- obstacles having been put or a bill being introduced in such a way that not one individual, not one institution, not one organization in the 10 million or so population of Ontario has been prevented from attending and having an input in the legislative process that we carry and follow as lawmakers.

In this case, not one citizen out of the 10 million or so citizens of Ontario has been allowed to appear before the committee to express his viewpoint on one side of the issue or the other. We refer to many religious institutions from which we have all received letters, but no one institution has appeared before this committee. This is what troubles me and that is specifically the issue I would like to address.

I recall last weekend speaking to a reporter from one of the three papers. We were discussing Bill 7 and he said: "If I were to be asked now: `What is your position on Bill 7 and section 18? Would you support it or would you oppose it?' frankly, I could not make a decision. I am not ready to make such a decision. I need time to think. I would like to consult. I would like to hear the two sides of the issue and various points of view, so that I am clear as to the impact of this before I make a decision."

I was elected, as all of us were, with the impression that we would be responsible lawmakers, that in making decisions or taking stands or having views which verge on moral issues we have to be very careful if we are responsible lawmakers that the decisions and the positions we take have gone through a process. It is not by accident that the parliamentary system of government allows for public input. It is an educative process. I have learned a great deal in the few years I have been privileged to serve as a member of the Ontario Legislature. This has been an educative process to me individually, as I am sure it has been for every member. It is also an educative process that in the processing of laws, particularly progressive changes, we educate our own citizens.

However, the educational system or the educational process cannot be done in a unilateral, subversive, dubious way. It has to be done openly. By doing it differently, we victimize further those we want to help. The issue is not whether one supports or opposes the five subsections in section 18 or whether one supports or opposes the inclusion of sexual orientation in an omnibus bill, a housekeeping bill which, when the Attorney General introduced it, did not even have this section in it. There were no subsections 18(1) to (5) when the Attorney General in his wisdom and his cabinet colleagues introduced the bill.

17:00

The bill went through first reading. It went through second reading and went into a committee where, as I understand from the chairman of that committee, at the clause-by-clause stage of deliberation, a member of this Legislature introduced an amendment and a clause. Because of the procedure and the moment at which this amendment was introduced, there was no way for public input. That is my concern. I understand people, witnesses and organizations, appeared before the committee on such issues as adult-only buildings. Many appeared and presented their views on sections that dealt with this area.

I have not followed the minutes of the standing committee, but I understand there have been witnesses and presentations from citizens and groups on other parts of the bill, trying to impress on us as lawmakers their views, trying to educate us on the position we would take, but not one single individual, not one organization, not one institution out of the 10 million people in this province appeared on an issue which, we all admit, is so difficult.

Ms. Gigantes: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman: The member has indicated that he has not read Hansard. He might have checked with other members of his caucus to know that we received many delegations and individuals on this question.

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

Mr. Shymko: My understanding from the chairman is that this was not so. There were no public hearings on this issue, which is just as sensitive as the issue of continued funding to the separate school boards, an issue that polarized society, an issue that was very sensitive. There were full hearings. It was demanded by all parties, particularly the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, that we should not skip the fundamental stage of public hearings on an issue that was divisive. Yet for some reason on this issue the New Democratic Party has objections.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for High Park-Swansea has the floor. Will the members please keep their interjections down?

Mr. Shymko: Notwithstanding the remarks from my colleagues to the left, whose party's name is the New Democratic Party, the issue here is democracy. I would like to address the issue of democracy. When we speak of a government of the people, by the people and for the people, by circumventing the democratic process of public input, we are making a total sham of this. We are ridiculing that entire aspect. No public input has been allowed. There were no hearings on this.

I recall, as chairman of the standing committee on social development, when we introduced --

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: You ruled my colleague out of order but perhaps you can help me. Since there were hearings, and since presentations were made on this, will you ask the member to clarify the record, read it, or will you clarify the record?

Mr. Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Martel: It certainly is. He is getting up and saying things that are inaccurate.

Mr. Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Martel: Perhaps the Chairman should tell me what we do when we sit here and know that hearings were held on this item, and my friend continues to say that is not the case.

Mr. Chairman: Order. What you do is wait your turn to speak next and then put your position.

Mr. Martel: I am just asking you to clarify what I do.

Mr. Chairman: Order. You can speak on this in committee of the whole House.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Will you tell the jackals to be quiet so I can hear you? I cannot hear your answer for the jackals.

Mr. Chairman: The answer is that you can speak in your turn following the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Martel: Oh, you are telling me that it is okay to get up here --

The Deputy Chairman: Order. This point of order is at an end.

Mr. Shymko: I would like the honourable member to quote me the date of the Ontario Gazette advertising public hearings. I do not recall any. If the member wants to --

Mr. Martel: That is not what he said. He is playing games again. If he wants to play this game, I can play it too. That is not what --

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Sudbury East will be seated.

Mr. Shymko: I was privileged to serve as chairman of the standing committee on social development. Many of my honourable colleagues on the left recall the major changes in family law and how they affected families. The impact it has on families is being mentioned in the debate on whatever side. I am still very confused whether it is true information or disinformation on the breakup of families.

When we made fundamental and very important changes in the area of family law, the government introduced a draft bill that had been discussed for a year to two years. After the draft bill, the final bill was introduced by Bob Elgie, who was Minister of Community and Social Services at the time. That bill went through hearings before committee for almost a year and a half to two years. We travelled throughout the entire province. We listened to public input because of the wisdom we cherish in this House that there is some intelligence outside these walls. It is shameful to imply that someone who stands up for public input and public hearings is in any way being derogatory of the citizens of Ontario.

I spoke about an example, an issue of family law. There have been many issues. The completion of funding to the Catholic school system is another example. Our citizens are concerned that there must be public input on issues that are divisive or that are perceived to be divisive, on issues that are emotional. I do not have to convince my colleagues of all parties of the emotional nature of this bill in an area such as my riding, where last summer a homosexual individual was murdered in High Park by a group of young men who went on a gay-bashing spree. There is no way we can condone that horrendous crime. It may have some relationship, as I am convinced, to societal values. I believe that in gay-bashing, that horrendous crime, the actions of those individuals in some way reflect societal attitudes. We cannot sit back and say that is not true.

On the other hand, there is a substantial Portuguese community --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What do you do? Give the speech and mail it to one side and then to the other side?

Mr. Shymko: I do not have to listen to these cynical remarks from the honourable member. I do not interrupt nor would I interrupt when he was speaking. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to request my colleagues on the left to refrain from continually interrupting my remarks.

On the other side of the emotional issue, I have inherited and have a very substantial Portuguese community in my riding that to this day talks about little Emanuel, the shoeshine boy. That was another horrendous crime committed, where emotions are boiling on the other side of the issue.

17:10

Some years ago I recall the issue of two lesbians who had an apartment in an Ontario Housing Corp. complex. One of the parents was a divorced individual with a five-year old girl. These women were evicted on the basis that this was not a proper family environment in which to raise a little girl. I objected to this because if members visit the Hospital for Sick Children, they will see cases of horrifying physical and other abuse of children who do not come from homosexual families. Almost 100 per cent of these children come from heterosexual family environments.

I do not buy arguments one way or the other. The issue is emotional. The issue impacts. I cannot accept the lobbying efforts on any side. As a Catholic, I am disturbed when I receive lobbying letters from the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, which tell me that as a Catholic I should not vote in support of this bill, perhaps threatening me with the fires of purgatory; I do not know.

I am equally and adamantly opposed to the lobbying efforts and to remarks in this Legislature that because I may take another stand, I am cold-blooded, insensitive and bigoted and am discriminating against individuals, as colleagues on this side of the House have been accused of insensitivity, discrimination and bigotry. That is not the case.

I would like to quote some remarks made by the Honourable John Crosbie on June 8, 1985, in a speech to the Canadian Cerebral Palsy Association. Members have all received copies of it. It bears today's date, December 1. It refers to some of the concerns of removing barriers to equal opportunity for disabled people in Bill 7.

The part I would like to read -- and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is here -- is the following: "Barriers that exist in society do not exist because of ill will or an intention to discriminate, but because of ignorance."

I refer to the educational process I would like to be subjected to by listening to the intelligent input of people on one side or the other side of this issue on subsections 18(1) to (5). That is my concern. I am sure this concern unites all of us, because subversion of democracy and subversion of a public process -- and the public process is being circumvented in a dubious way -- will not help anyone.

I refuse to be an accomplice to any shameful abrogation or subversion of that democratic process which we have applied to other major issues affecting our society. Rejecting the right to equal access to law or to the process of law is fundamentally wrong. This is what we are doing by not allowing for public hearings. It may take four or five more months, but the only proper approach is to educate ourselves and to educate society. Indeed, vehement, tragic discrimination results in such horrifying crimes as the one that was committed in my riding, in the victimization of a homosexual individual, who was murdered, or in the victimization of little Emanuel, who was butchered in a horrifying way on the other side of the issue.

We cannot allow for not going through the public hearing process. Public access, public input and public consultation are fundamental principles of the democratic parliamentary system in which we operate. As I recall the remarks made by the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan), she said the purpose of this bill is to give human rights to all. I support human rights for all, but to entrench human rights for all by a process that tramples the human rights of all will, in my opinion, result in the abrogation of both. It will deny both. It will be mockery of both humans rights and democratic rights. It will not help but will further victimize those we supposedly want to help.

The Attorney General may be watching this debate on the television monitors. I would like him to listen to a letter from one of his constituents which refers to this very issue. It is signed by Rita Hogg of 22 Woodland Avenue East, apartment 503. It is addressed to the Attorney General, and she says:

"It is a pretty sad commentary on our democratic process when an issue certain to have far-reaching and disastrous effects is pushed through a private member's amendment at the clause-by-clause stage in committee without any allowance for the customary forum for public debate."

Her last sentence is something I do not agree with totally. She says, "The forces of evil do indeed attempt to win by stealth and covert acts."

She is a little strong on the forces of evil because I do not think anyone has any evil intents -- absolutely not. It is certainly reminiscent of the remarks of the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan), who says we must help gays just as we help criminals and alcoholics. I find it insulting that the member for Brampton, who supports Bill 7, categorizes those of that sexual orientation as being similar to criminals and alcoholics. I certainly object to that, as I am sure the members to the left do.

Her sentence that this is done by stealth and covert acts is the impression out there.

Ms. Gigantes: Do not report that; that is not true.

Mr. Shymko: It is not my view. That is exactly the perception of our citizens, that it is being done in a dubious way.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Address the chair.

Mr. Shymko: This is what we are trying to correct.

I refuse to vote on a major issue without the views of my constituents being expressed. This week my constituents will be receiving my Queen's Park report where there is a questionnaire and the question is addressed, "What are your views on this issue?"

Some members are fortunate to have received an answer; I have not. As a responsible member of the Legislature, it is only fair that I try to obtain the opinions of my constituents. There is nothing wrong in making that request. All of us do it on various stages and on various topics before us in this Legislature.

I also feel I should hear the views of other religious denominations, not only of my faith. In my riding, I have the only mosque in Metropolitan Toronto. I would like to hear the views of the Islamic faith. I would like to hear the views of those of the Jewish faith and the United Church. One of my colleagues says the letters from the hierarchy do not reflect the views of the faithful. There are many questions that have to be addressed.

There are issues that have not been answered in terms of questions that were raised in the debate, namely, the implication it may have on the voluntary sector. I have not heard an answer, but I would like to hear an answer on the issue of the impact and whether this will not be binding in terms of the voluntary sector.

I am discriminated against; because of my heterosexual sexual orientation, I am prevented from being a counsellor to Girl Guides or to Big Sisters. I am discriminated against, as those of my orientation are. I would like to know whether those of the homosexual orientation will be discriminated against as well. These are valid questions. They have not been answered.

17:20

In 1981, we introduced amendments to the Human Rights Code. Members will recall that we went through public hearings. We were fair and square. I recall the Honourable Bob Elgie's home being picketed day after day during the election by people who had strong and violent views and who objected to some of the progressive changes being introduced in that bill, but we went ahead fair and square. We did not hide. We went through public hearings because that is the way we help people. That is the way we educate society and educate ourselves in the process.

We should not be hiding, because if individuals and groups in our society had to be secretive and had to hide, we could not rectify this by passing a legislative bill or an amendment in another hidden, dubious way. Why should we hide? Let us make it open. Let us allow for a few weeks of public hearings as we have done on other major issues and let us not victimize those we are supposed to help.

Reference has been made to Quebec. I remind honourable colleagues to my left that when a similar bill and changes were introduced in Quebec, they went through the formal, normal legislative process of public hearings. Why are we afraid to follow the same route, as we have done on other major bills and major legislation? We do not do it by stealth. We do not shove these things through. The government does not help by doing it this way. I will not be a partner to a subversion of that democratic, fundamental process by refusing and shutting out people from participating in the formulation of law in this province.

In 1984-85, we were criticized for the process adopted in completion of Catholic school funding. This criticism was levelled, particularly by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, and justly so. In all fairness, I must say that of the three parties in this Legislature, the NDP -- I am sure my colleagues will not hesitate to correct me if I am wrong -- is the only party that adopted a policy position on this issue at its party convention.

Mr. Wildman: We are the only party that has a policy on anything.

Mr. Shymko: Am I correct?

I assumed that at the party convention the NDP members had voted on a position. I know they did it on the abortion issue. I do not recall my party adopting a position on this in Hamilton. I do not recall the Liberal Party having a position. Talk about grass roots. We pride ourselves that we want grass-roots input. There has not been any. That also bothers me. If I cannot consult my party, let me at least consult the people in my riding. I understand we will be voting on a free choice.

I would like to conclude by referring to today's editorial in the Globe and Mail, which says "after years of hiding it for fear of discrimination, who would be the poorer?" We will be poorer if the way of resolving it is by hiding, by stealth, by dubious ways, not allowing for full public hearings.

The editorial also speaks of the "right to expect the same public treatment as everybody else. Denying a minority that right does not enhance `traditional moral values'; it mocks them. It diminishes our legislators and, through them, ourselves."

If we circumvent democracy, that is precisely what we are doing. We are not giving equal public treatment to the issue. We are denying the democratic right of our citizens to participate in the formulation and passage of law. We are denying that right and we are hurting moral values. We are making a mockery of democracy. We are diminishing ourselves as legislators and, through us, the people.

I refuse. I will boycott it. I will not pretend that I am sick, but I will not be here to vote on subsections 18(1) to (5). I refuse to participate in this mockery of democracy. I am proud to say our caucus critic, the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor), will also join me in boycotting it. I urge members to boycott the vote on section 18. The only way this should be passed is after full public hearings.

On third reading I will be introducing an amendment, a motion for partial recommittal of the bill. I hope I will have the support of all honourable members when I move that subsections 18(1) to (5), inclusive, be recommitted to the standing committee on administration of justice. That partial recommittal is not procedurally wrong. According to the information I have received from the table, it is procedurally correct.

Therefore, I appeal to the Attorney General and in particular to my colleagues in the Liberal Party and in the New Democratic Party not to subvert a fundamental right of our people, and that is the right to educate us, so that we may educate ourselves in the process, and to provide input into major legislation that is divisive, is misunderstood and may be the subject of a lot of misconceptions. Unless we do this, we will victimize those who, we are told, are victimized by the status quo.

I have received a letter from a constituent. It may be a little partisan. I hate to be partisan. My honourable colleagues know I rarely am partisan in debates on major issues. I will quote from a letter that was brought to my home this weekend. It says:

"Why is it that this legislation is being introduced? After all contentions for and against have been taken up, the bottom line is that they," meaning the government, "think that, on balance, they will be given credit and votes for it not only from the homosexual community but also from the general public.

"What they are really doing," says the author of this letter, "they are putting certain beliefs and practices at par with other concepts such as freedom of speech. In so doing, they are subverting one of the fundamental beliefs of the majority of this society, namely, public input."

He concludes by saying: "They," the government, "were not given a mandate to do this. If they are aware of the underhandedness of what they are doing, they are despicable scoundrels." I would never use this word.

He continues: "If not so aware, they are befuddled and besotted. In either case, they are unfit to hold public office and should be voted out. "

I do not know whether this is a member of the New Democratic Party or a Liberal elector, but these are very strong feelings. On the basis of this, one obtains such letters from constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I urge you to allow input from all members of the Legislature on this issue because, as I said earlier, to entrench human rights for all by trampling on the democratic rights of all will result in the abrogation, the denial and the mockery of both.

Mr. Mackenzie: I do not intend to be long on this, but it is difficult to refrain from taking part in this debate when I hear some of the comments I have heard during the last few days. It is rather sad to hear the way some of the members try to squirm around, coming down on both sides of the issue while making it clear one is not going to catch them voting for an amendment such as this. It is really difficult.

I do not think I have ever quoted one columnist who has been around this House for a long time, and I am talking here about Rosemary Speirs. I think two or three of the points she makes are very well taken.

17:30

I am a little disturbed at where some of the so-called Christian compassion and charity are on this issue when we listen to some of the speeches that have been made in this House. I would not mind if they were dealing with truths. However, many of the members are dealing with the propaganda and the nontruth that has been put forward here.

I want the members to my right to know I do not have any difficulty at all in standing up and saying that on this issue there is no question whatsoever where my vote goes. I think the issue is one of simple justice, one of discrimination, because I have experienced it in cases I have handled in my own constituency office, and I do not think it is one that is going to promote all of the terrible things some of the members are using here as examples.

I guess what bothers me most of all is what appears to be the deliberate use of the horror or shock words and comments such as "stealth" and "perversion" and "covert acts." I have never heard such nonsense in all my bloody life as I have heard in this House over the last few days.

I respect somebody who has a real moral dilemma on the issue. I think I can accept that. I had to wrestle with it a little myself. However, I sure as blazes cannot respect those -- and I have heard a number of them in this House -- whose view is not based on anything that I can see is a real moral value or consideration but is based on -- I am trying not to use the word "bigotry" but I can certainly use the words "fear" and "fear of themselves," I can certainly use the word "hate" and I can certainly use the words "deliberate misrepresentation." Either that or people just simply do not understand what is going on.

I think two or three of the comments are worth underlining. I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life as equating Quebec's ban on discrimination against homosexuals with the fall in Quebec's provincial birth rate, or the Realwomen of Canada pamphlet that falsely says many people will be hurt: athletic associations, schools, day care centres, boys' clubs, parents of schoolchildren. The pamphlet raises fears by warning that because of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, homosexuals have become a medical threat to the population at large. What are we going to do with AIDS patients? Are we going to decide they cannot even be treated? Are we going to isolate them totally from society? I do not think that is a very Christian or charitable way of doing things.

Other comments were that homosexuality embodies sadomasochism, bestiality and other perversions and that the new legislation will make homosexual recruitment of the young permissible and acceptable. Can anybody really, honestly and truly believe that is what this bill is all about? Surely to goodness and mercy that cannot be the honest belief of some of the members who have been parroting these kind of words.

There were comments that the bill would lead to legalization of homosexual marriage and permission for homosexuals to adopt children. That is not what the bill says. That may happen in the normal course of events or it may not, but it is certainly not what this bill says.

There was a comment that if homosexuals believe their sexual orientation is a private matter and not for public censure, they should not conduct their business in public washrooms. I found that one of the most despicable comments I have heard made here, because that is not the intent of the bill or what the bill is all about, either.

This bill simply says that in terms of housing and in terms of jobs we cannot discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation any more than we can because of colour, religion or creed. If we do not see that, then there are some people in this House who are extremely shortsighted and some people who, with their use of shock words, are fanning the very embers of discrimination in this province.

What has happened in this House over the past two or three days is one of the saddest episodes I have seen in almost 12 years in this Legislature. I would ask the members to look into their own hearts and souls for a few minutes and ask themselves just what is Christian charity and compassion and how what they are saying puts them on side with that kind of view of society generally.

I will be proud to stand in this House and vote for this amendment because I think it is simply a case of justice, fairness, equality and nondiscrimination. I do not think it is any more than that and I cannot understand the views of some of the members of this House.

Ms. Fish: I rise today to join this debate to speak as strongly as I possibly can on behalf of this amendment. I intend to stand in my place when the vote comes and proudly and firmly support this amendment. I would like to take a few moments to review the reasons for my position.

This amendment and all the amendments over the years from the date of the first passage of a Human Rights Code in Ontario have had one single stream in common, and that is a statement that is being made about our society.

In my view, the statements we as legislators will make this time will be clear, as the statements of legislators who preceded us in speaking to previous amendments to the Human Rights Code and its predecessor acts were clear. These are perhaps best illustrated in a couple of quotes.

My first quote is from George Drew, who in 1944 spoke in the debate on the Racial Discrimination Act. His statement is as germane today as when he first uttered it: "We have a very simple choice to make. When we say that Canada is a land of freedom and of equality, we either mean what we say or we do not."

More recently, on February 22, 1962, in the introduction to the Human Rights Code Act, John P. Robarts said: "If you deprive any particular group of people of the ordinary rights enjoyed by all other people, then those who should be most indignant are not the people against whom the discrimination is practised, but rather those whose basic principles of justice and equality have been insulted."

Those quotes set out very properly and completely my view of what is before us in this amendment to this act. I stand outraged, not as someone who has been on the receiving end of discrimination by virtue of sexual orientation, but as someone with a commitment to basic equality and justice in our society and its principles who has found those principles badly offended by the discrimination we have permitted to occur within this great province over the years when this amendment was not brought forward.

This amendment does nothing more than advance a simple and clear notion of Ontario's society. It is a society where people are dealt with on their merits, not on the basis of any other characteristic, most particularly in the limited areas of which we speak in this amendment: housing, employment and public services.

A number of speakers in the debate thus far have quoted some constituent correspondence. I would like to take a moment to quote two passages from among the 2,500 letters that have come to my office on this subject.

My first brief quote: "Our eldest daughter is a lesbian. The passage of Bill 7 does not have anything to do with promoting homosexuality. Homosexuality cannot be promoted. Either you are a homosexual person or you are not. There is no choice involved. But Bill 7 would ensure that my daughter or her friends could not be fired or lose a residence because of the bigoted actions of a landlord or employer. Presently, they have no legal recourse under the law, which leaves them very vulnerable."

Or a second quote from a constituent letter: "We are shockingly aware of the serious abuse and violence directed against the homosexual community. Ontario alone documents two deaths attributable to homophobic violence within the last year. Those who have spoken out against Bill 7 seem totally unaware that the victims of this abuse are our sons, daughters and friends. They deserve the same equality under the law as everyone else."

That is precisely the point: They deserve the same equality under the law as everyone else, but they do not now possess it.

17:40

I would like to deal specifically with some of the allegations that have been advanced as consequences that may flow from these amendments to the act, if adopted. I believe these allegations are groundless.

The first is precisely that on which I have already touched. It is an allegation of special status. There is no special status involved here. There is the extension of a fundamental protection in human rights to a group in our society which has lacked that protection since the very earliest forerunners of the Human Rights Code, and indeed the current act, were put in place.

There is no more special status here than there was in the earliest legislation. The issues of race and religion were acknowledged in some of the earliest antidiscriminatory legislation adopted by our predecessors in this very chamber. Nor is there any more special status afforded here than was afforded in the most recent round of amendments in 1981, also to Bill 7, by the way, when amendments were made to recognize mental and physical handicaps and marital status, among other things.

There was no special status afforded, merely a recognition that, as our society has grown and changed, the areas of discrimination have also grown and changed. Our knowledge and awareness that it is wrong and our appreciation of the inappropriateness of discrimination directed against individual groups within our society have also come to the fore. We have moved steadily during some 40 years to identify areas of discrimination, to identify minority groups who have suffered from discrimination and to correct and amend that, at the very least in the most minimal possible form, in housing, employment and public services.

Let me deal with the suggestion that this amendment somehow takes us into an area we have not been in before, because it takes us into an area of choice. I could stand here and talk about the myriad studies that have been done. I recall the eloquent presentation of Peter Maloney when he came before the standing committee on resources development in 1981 with a compelling presentation on medical analysis of the degree to which choice is absent in the question of sexual orientation.

For those who would not accept that analysis, rather than engage in an argument of whether there is choice, I believe there is not. I believe sexual orientation is set very early and is set within the individual, not by one's environment. Let me simply say the issues of choice are already covered in the code. Religion is a question of choice, marital status is a question of choice, and today, with medical advances, gender is a matter of choice. Even if one were to argue that for the first time there is a question of choice coming before the code, I would suggest there was not. We have long contained within the code, from the very first days of its being adopted, protection for things that are choices. It is not new. The issue of choice or nonchoice is not therefore, in my opinion, a basis to rule for or against this amendment.

We have had the suggestion that there will be a complication for those who are forced to hire gay men and women in our society. I well recall the oft-repeated concern of groups such as Big Brothers. That has been dealt with extensively. I will repeat it briefly. The code does not purport to cover volunteers and the selection of volunteers.

More to the point, even if we are talking about hiring for a full-time job within a particular sectarian school as an argument, for example, the code has similarly contained within it the opportunities for those who wish to be exempt to come forward to the commission with grounds for exemption and to make their case known. That has been used for exemptions, for example, in certain religious areas. Therefore, those who feel there will be an intrusion into their areas of, for example, religious value will clearly be in a position to come forward and utilize the sections now available to give consideration to exemption. I therefore consider the argument on being forced to hire to be facetious at best.

We then deal with a similar area that is awfully close to the argument on being forced to hire. It is what I consider to be an excessive misdirection in dealing with certain facts and drawing certain conclusions. I note the extraordinary conclusion drawn by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) in suggesting that within Quebec there was a causal relationship between the adoption of a similar section to its human rights legislation and a subsequent decline in the birth rate. The purported linking of the two facts would be so incredible as to be humorous were it not dealing with the future, lives and conditions of men and women in our society and being used to argue a position to advance continued discrimination against them.

That is closely followed -- and there is a real one-two race here for first prize -- by the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) who, in reading another section of the code, stated:

"I refer members to the Human Rights Code, chapter 53, 1981, and the definition of `harassment because of sex in accommodation.' I want to read this into the record: `Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment because of sex by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building. I interpret that to mean the landlord is the one who is creating the sex problem; that he is having sex with a tenant, you might say."

That is an incredible misdirection of conclusion based on the fact of what is written in the code. I suspect that the average person listening to those two arguments might conclude that the logical extension of the concerns of the member for Erie, if the same logic is applied as that which was applied by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, is that following the amendments to the Human Rights Code that were brought in some years ago and that were quoted by the member for Erie, there was a dramatic plummeting in the sale price of apartment buildings as landlords were apparently no longer able to engage in sex with their tenants.

17:50

Let me turn to family values. We have heard a great deal about family values in the course of this debate. Most of what we have heard has suggested that this amendment would constitute a fundamental assault and attack upon the family values that, I believe, everyone in this chamber cherishes and that are important to people throughout this province.

I will speak for a moment about family values and what they mean for me. For me, family values mean living within an atmosphere that is loving, tolerant and understanding of the foibles of one's mate and that has a genuine concern, care and treasuring for those generations before us -- our parents -- and for those generations that follow us -- our children if we are individually blessed with them, or, more broadly, the children of the family of our society of Ontario, in whose interest we all put priority whether they are of our own flesh and blood or whether they are the children of our friends, our neighbours, our sisters, brothers and cousins.

The true betrayals of family values, in my view, are the betrayal of wife abuse, the betrayal of child abuse and the betrayal of family breakdowns that lead to poverty and to an inability of one part of the family to carry on. Anything that has the opportunity of permitting people within our society to live with dignity, to live with understanding and to take the greatest part in participation in our society has the effect, in my view, of enhancing family values, not only within a reflection upon the individual family but within that broader family we call Ontario society.

The discussion about an assault on family values has too often in this debate been linked directly to another area of purported result should the amendment proceed. I speak to the suggestion that the amendment would somehow override the Criminal Code and allow or encourage bestiality and paedophilia. This is misdirection. On the basis of the facts, this code cannot now, will not after this amendment and never has taken the place of the Criminal Code of this country. I cannot conceive how anyone with a modicum of understanding of our system of justice could stand before us and suggest that somehow it could. It cannot.

By the way, the overwhelming majority of those who abuse children sexually, who engage in paedophilia, are not from within the ranks of the gay men and women of our society. The overwhelming majority are heterosexual men abusing young girls. I have not noticed a concern that somehow our Human Rights Code or the standards in our society have been linked to an enhancement of paedophilia and child molestation on the part of heterosexual men against young girls.

There is also the suggestion that sadomasochism and bondage will result. Why do those who make that allegation not have a word or two with our police forces in this country? They will rapidly find out that the overwhelming majority of the material that is so offensive and exploitive and that deals so explicitly with sadomasochism and bondage is directed against women and for the consumption of the heterosexual men within our society. Let members reflect for a moment on that.

Then, of course, there is the suggestion that this amendment would somehow advance homosexual marriage or adoption. Just as the code cannot change the Criminal Code of this land, the Human Rights Code cannot in itself change the other independent acts of this Legislature, most particularly the acts that deal with these and other similar questions. It just is not so.

Perhaps the saddest for me in all of the debate has been the argument advanced by the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops; the saddest because it is a church that has itself been the subject of discrimination within this province; that has been in a minority position and understood the rough justice that can result, that understands the changes of a society over time and a church and a conference that a few short years ago cited and identified the particular problems that flowed from the discrimination against gay men and women in our province. Reflect for a moment on what the bishops have said, and I quote:

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

What would the conference of bishops have us do? What are they really saying to us? Re-enter the bedrooms of this province and the nation? What sophistry is found in that distinction between orientation and practice and where is that much-vaunted Christian charity that the church has stood for over time, presents itself as standing for today, but gives the lie to in this October decision of the conference of bishops? If it were not such a deadly attack on an attempt to provide some human basic rights for a minority within our society it would be laughable.

I thought to myself, what would they have us do? I said: "I have it. I know what they want. Picture this: a gay man or woman goes up to a landlord to rent an apartment and the landlord apparently would have us ask, in the round tones of another fine Roman Catholic of American extraction some 33 years ago, `Are you now or have you ever been a practising homosexual?'"

How ridiculous, how damning, how dangerous, how mean-spirited, how nasty, how betraying of genuine charity, compassion, tolerance and understanding. I will have no part of an introduction of McCarthyism into this society. I will have no truck with those who deliberately misdirect conclusions based on facts and I will proudly stand in my place to support this amendment and this bill.

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

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the members that pursuant to standing order 30 the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). This matter will be debated at 6 p.m. on Tuesday evening, December 2.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

1 décembre 1986