Journal des débats 1994-juin-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The home of the Royal Canadian Henley Regatta is the subject of much debate and discussion in the city of St Catharines, as the very future of the rowing course may be threatened by silting and the cost of the cleanup of the contaminated sediment should dredging be initiated.

If world-class rowing events are to be attracted to the Henley, and indeed if existing rowing events are to be retained in St Catharines, the course must eventually be dredged to meet rowing standards.

More than athletic issues, however, confront this course. Of even greater importance is the environmental health of the watercourse, which has been the historic recipient of industrial, agricultural and municipal contaminants in years gone by.

While senior levels of government have established hot-spot designations for several sites on the Great Lakes and assigned priority to these locations for environmental cleanup, it is clear that hundreds of other sites, such as the Henley Basin, deserve equal consideration from senior levels of government.

To meet the challenge of the future of rowing in St Catharines and the environmental betterment of the waterway on which rowing takes place will require a team of municipal, provincial and federal elected representatives working together with rowing enthusiasts, the private sector and community groups.

If we all pull together, we can cross the finish line as winners.

AGA KHAN FOUNDATION

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I am pleased today to outline the contribution of the Ismaili community, estimated to be 35,000 people in the province of Ontario.

Last weekend my colleague Don Cousens and I participated in the Partnership Walk '94, a 10-kilometre, fund-raising walk organized by the Aga Khan Foundation of Canada with the objective to raise approximately $1.5 million to be directed to assisting women to establish business opportunities in developing Third World countries.

In Toronto, on May 29, over 5,000 participants raised an estimated $250,000. At the same time, Aga Khan Foundation Canada volunteers hosted similar events in Ottawa, Kitchener and other Canadian cities involving 60,000 Canadians.

During the 10 years this event has occurred, substantial funds have been raised to support health, education, environmental and rural development programs in Africa and Asia.

On June 12, the Aga Khan Council for Ontario has organized as a youth project the 10th annual 10K run, with a fund-raising objective of $50,000, to be directed to the United Way of Greater Toronto. This year's event will begin at the North York Civic Centre. I extend my congratulations to the expected 2,000 runners and volunteers who will be working with the United Way of Greater Toronto to assist those most in need.

Congratulations to the Aga Khan Foundation and the Ismaili community for this fine work.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I have received a letter from Mr Tom Greensides, chair of the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board, who is asking our government and the federal government to follow the lead of the United States Congress and proclaim one week in the year Wine Appreciation Week. As the MPP for the wine-rich area of Niagara, I wholeheartedly support Mr Greensides's suggestion and will be following up with a formal letter to you, Mr Speaker, requesting your support for a Wine Appreciation Week.

It should come as no surprise to any member that the wine industry has become one of the most significant industries in our province over the last decade. New wineries are an expanding part of the agriculture and tourism sectors. Each year, more and more people come to the Niagara region to take a tour of the 15 wineries from Stoney Creek to Niagara Falls, and more new estate wineries are coming on stream each year.

The Ontario grape and wine industry is a job creator and a moneymaker. It provides full-time and seasonal jobs for some 10,000 people. It alone generates more than $100 million a year in revenue for the government. In an overall declining market, Ontario wines have increased their provincial market share in the past four years from 35% to 40%, a remarkable achievement.

Recently, I had the privilege of attending the official opening of the new Chateau des Charmes château in Niagara-on-the-Lake. The Bosc family has poured their heart and soul into this project, and their unique French-style château is symbolic of the affection they have for the wine industry and the success they have gained as a result.

Mr Speaker, I look forward to your support and for all parties to support this initiative.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Today, as the Legislature does on every June 1 of every year, we recognize the plight of injured workers across Ontario.

Since before the Industrial Revolution, the threat of injury and death at the work site has been a fact of life in all jobs, and even though the nature of work in Ontario has changed substantially in the 20th century, employees still face situations where they're injured on the job.

Whether the government has been Liberal, Conservative or NDP, elected officials in this province have worked very hard in an effort to reduce and ultimately eliminate the threat of injury on the job.

We all know that the government is facing a financial squeeze and is cutting costs wherever it can. We on this side of the House hope that they would not decide to make injured workers pay through reduced funding to those government programs that help eliminate workplace injuries.

But we also know that money is only part of the answer. It will take a concerted effort among workers and employers to create the safest work environments. We have made great strides in this area in the past, but we must continue to improve upon this record if we are ever to see an end to the suffering of workers and their families because of unnecessary workplace injuries.

1340

VEHICLE SAFETY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): This statement is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, two of my constituents, John Baine and William Hemington, wrote to you to express their concerns about the insurance mechanical fitness certificates in Ontario.

Unfortunately, your reply failed to address their concerns or answer their questions. As a result, I stand today on their behalf with a commonsense proposition: Every time a vehicle changes ownership, it should be subject to a safety inspection. Currently, a safety certificate is valid for 36 days after the inspection of the vehicle. When a certificate is issued, two copies are given to the customer: a white copy and a yellow copy. The Minister of Transportation requires the white copy to register the vehicle in the purchaser's name; the yellow copy or receipt should be kept by the purchaser.

It sounds simple enough, but a problem arises in the fact that the yellow copy can in turn be used to resell the vehicle without inspection within the prescribed 36 days. At this point, the inspection station which issued the certificate loses control of the condition of the vehicle, but is still liable for its overall mechanical safety, liable for up to $25,000 in fines if found accountable for mechanical failure.

During the time between certificate insurance and expiry, a vehicle can be subject to an unlimited amount of mileage, wear, tear and abuse. In addition, there is always the possibility that good parts will be removed and replaced with inferior, damaged parts before resale.

The Highway Traffic Act outlines strict minimum safety standards which inspection stations must follow in order to ensure fitness of a vehicle. This is not enough. The present procedures needs to be revised so that all vehicles must be reinspected before each sale.

Without this, buyers of used vehicles and their families are subject to the risk of injury or death from an accident due to mechanical failure.

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Today, Whitby receives the Honourable Ruth Grier, Minister of Health. She will start her visit by officially launching Seniors' Month at Fairview Lodge, a home for the aged.

Recently, I met with the residents at the Fairview Lodge. They had a concern because they were limited to a two-week leave each year. I conveyed their concerns to the minister and the minister listened. Just a few weeks ago, the Ministry of Health modified the vacation leave to permit absence of up to a month and make leave for outside health care far more flexible.

Later, the Minister of Health will proceed to Whitby General Hospital. There she will dedicate the Tree of Life in honour of hundreds of donors who have reached deep into their pockets to build a community facility for medical care that has served our community for 25 years.

To conclude her visit to Whitby and to Durham Centre, the honourable member will, weather permitting, view the freshly painted murals at the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital as part of its 75th anniversary.

As you may know, the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital is being completely rebuilt, a $133.5-million commitment to mental health care in our province. The people of Durham Centre, of Whitby and of Oshawa, welcome today's visit by the Honourable Ruth Grier as she officially launches Seniors' Month and celebrates the many years of service by our two outstanding facilities.

CLEAN AIR CAMPAIGN

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'd like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of members of the House and people throughout the province a very important event which was launched earlier today by Pollution Probe and the Lung Association at an event that seeks to improve air quality throughout Ontario.

The event is called the Clean Air Campaign and its aim over the next month is to make very clear the link that exists between human health problems and the quality of air that we breathe.

The Clean Air Campaign is being marked by a number of events throughout the month of June including a free vehicle emissions testing clinic for Ontario motorists between June 14 and 16, a clean air commute challenge with the city of Vancouver on June 22, a guided bicycle tour of Tommy Thompson Park on June 25, and numerous speeches and educational displays in office buildings, corporations and organizations around the province.

Accompanying the Clean Air Campaign launch is the release of the report entitled Let's Make One Thing Perfectly Clear, which identifies transportation, and in particular cars, trucks and the infrastructure that keeps them moving, as the largest single contributor to smog-causing pollution in Ontario.

There are many things that we as individuals can do to improve air quality within the province. We all have an interest in reducing the amount of air pollution that is created and improving the quality of air that we breathe. Through participating in the Clean Air Campaign this month and throughout the rest of the year, we can all make a difference. I would like to congratulate both Pollution Probe and the Lung Association on this most important initiative.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the House today to remind members of the Legislature that this coming weekend marks ALS Awareness Days. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis was given public attention when Lou Gehrig was diagnosed with this disease. More recently Sue Rodriguez in British Columbia and Dennis Kaye in his book, Laugh, I Thought I'd Die, both gave ALS the public awareness it deserves.

ALS is a fatal neuromuscular disease that strikes one in 50,000 Canadian adults. I have a personal interest in this devastating disease because several years ago my father passed away as a result of ALS. ALS crosses all social and economic boundaries. The average life expectancy of a person with ALS is two and a half years. ALS affects twice as many men as women. Recently, scientists have discovered the gene that causes ALS and we are now working towards a treatment and eventual cure.

For the past nine years, the ALS Society of Canada has held the annual cornflower campaign to raise funds for medical research. To commemorate Lou Gehrig's death, this weekend and throughout the month of June volunteers in communities throughout Ontario will be participating in flower days to raise awareness for ALS and to ask for donations that will be used towards medical research.

In my riding of Dufferin-Peel, the Orangeville Optimist Club has organized the local cornflower campaign and will be offering the symbolic cornflower in exchange for a donation to ALS. When you see the volunteers with the blue cornflowers, please give generously so that together we can eliminate this devastating disease.

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): This week is National Access Awareness Week. Since its inception seven years ago, the focus of National Access Awareness Week has been to promote public awareness of disabilities and to set goals for attaining full access to services and facilities in our community.

In keeping with that spirit, I am pleased to announce that in East York, Centennial College is renovating its facilities to include a state-of-the-art, fully accessible electronic auditorium and multi-use community theatre. The theatre will be fully accessible to disabled, deaf, deafened and hard of hearing patrons. The upgraded facility will be managed by a community management board to ensure full community participation and access.

The East York Symphony, the Pelican Players, Masani Youth Upfront Theatre and the Greek Community Dance Theatre are just some of the many community-based groups that will now call this theatre their home.

1350

On May 25, I was happy to announce Jobs Ontario Community Action funding, through the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, in the amount of $1 million towards this renovation. The project will create 38 construction jobs and contribute to the economic renewal of Pape Village businesses and restaurants.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers? It is now time for oral questions; the honourable House leader of the opposition, the member for Bruce.

A point of order?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is my understanding that there was a request from the government minister to have unanimous consent to make a statement on National Access Awareness Week. I understand that unanimous consent was not agreed to because the Liberals disagreed with that request.

On a personal point, I have a statement prepared for National Access Awareness Week and I am very disappointed that the Liberals would not find this a significant or important enough week to be recognized by a unanimous consent statement by the government members and the opposition members.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the same point of order, the House leader.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, in this place, the House leaders have always endeavoured to manage the issue of unanimous consents so that we don't have a unanimous consent on every occasion.

While all of us here view National Access Awareness Week with the very highest degree of appreciation, we have always maintained that through members' statements, if the caucuses wish to pursue members' statements, there is ample opportunity to make the views known. At the same time, each of us is quite well able to make sure that we tell all the people who are interested in National Access Awareness Week, through our actions and through our votes in this Legislature, that in fact it is important.

While I now regret that time has been taken off the clock as a result of there not being anything but an adherence to what has been the operations of the three House leaders in the past, if people want to pursue a statement on National Access Awareness Week, I am quite prepared to consent to that and I ask for unanimous consent for that now to occur.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for a statement on National Access Awareness Week? Agreed. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this item?

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Every year in the first week of June, Canadians mark National Access Awareness Week. It is one way to raise public awareness of the need to break down the barriers which prevent persons with disabilities from having the same quality of life as persons who are not disabled.

When we talk about improving accessibility for disabled persons, most of us think of installing wheelchair ramps where there are stairs, putting Braille buttons on elevators or providing buses and taxis that accommodate wheelchairs. In other words, we think about ways to remove physical barriers to access. But what about the attitudinal, social and financial barriers?

Too often we see people who, when talking to a person who uses a wheelchair, will bend over and shout at that person as if he or she is hard of hearing. Too often people talk to a person with a hearing aid as if that person has an intellectual disability. Why do we do this? Why do we assume that a person with one disability must have other disabilities?

Also, why do we label people who have disabilities? Why do we talk about "the disabled," "the deaf" and "the blind"? Why do we use negative language, such as "wheelchair-bound"? A wheelchair user will tell you that it gives them freedom and it is not binding.

We will make real progress when we no longer use words like "access" or "accommodation" because we consider adjustments for disabled persons to be an automatic right rather than a special program.

We will make real progress when we provide the support that persons with disabilities need without their having to organize special lobby weeks and days to convince us of their needs and our responsibilities.

I think we should be ashamed of ourselves as legislators and citizens when we let families struggle, trying to meet the needs of a disabled relative, without helping them. What kind of society are we that does not provide for the needs of its more vulnerable members? There can be no excuses for failing to provide this help.

I am particularly aware of the needs of persons with developmental disabilities, many of whom have come to me seeking help. Since the recession hit in 1990, they have seen their funding cut or frozen and their supports weakened. The number of hours of special services at home have been drastically cut. Waiting lists have grown so long that some have been closed. For many adults, there are no supports whatsoever.

My private member's resolution of last December, which called for improvements to the way we fund persons with developmental disabilities, received the overwhelming and unanimous support of this House. Yet six months later the minister has yet to answer my letter about the resolution, let alone make the changes the resolution suggested.

One way that National Access Awareness Week can really help people is if people take the time to learn what it is like for people with disabilities. If more people would volunteer with the many organizations that help persons with disabilities, they would learn first hand how disabled persons and their support services struggle to make do with severely limited resources. They would see that there are thousands of people out there who need these support services but cannot gain access to them. I really believe that if more of us opened our eyes to the reality of being disabled without the necessary support, there would be a groundswell of opposition to our collective neglect of our responsibilities.

National Access Awareness Week is an important initiative, but it runs the risk of becoming meaningless if we cannot match words with action. For Rick Hansen, the wheelchair athlete who started National Access Awareness Week, and for all the people who work hard to make this week a success, we as legislators have a responsibility to improve access. No matter how hard the economic times, we cannot ignore the need of persons with disabilities to have ready access to education, employment, housing, recreation and transportation. Access is not a privilege, it is a right.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm very happy to participate in this celebration of National Access Awareness Week on behalf of the Ontario government. We have an excellent record of what we've been able to provide in terms of services for the disabled community, and if we look back we can see the excellent record we have.

I think you can see it in the Advocacy Act and the Substitute Decisions Act, legislation that protects vulnerable people and provides access. As well, when you look at the employment equity legislation, it ensures that everyone has an opportunity for employment. With the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, which includes persons with disabilities having access to training programs and opportunities to employment, we know there is a commitment to ongoing removal of the barriers. The goal is for access and full participation for all members of society. I'm very proud to say that the government has the commitment to provide the support and access for people, and this week is just one example of it.

It is important that people raise awareness through business, labour and working together to make sure that everyone has a place in society, including persons with disabilities, and that we look at the whole issue of global accessibility for all members of society and the important contribution disabled community members can have, which can lead to greater independence and accessibility.

I'm very proud to inform the House of a few things that show the excellent record our government has.

1400

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): It is a pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of my leader, Lyn McLeod, and my caucus and, if I may be so forward, I would say on behalf of all the members here, who support the progress of access to people who have been shut out.

May 30 to June 5 is regarded as National Access Awareness Week. We want, as my colleagues have said, to make sure this week raises that kind of awareness about the struggles these individuals have.

But the fact is that I could also rise in the House, and sometimes I'm tempted to, to criticize the government for not doing the things and giving the proper resources that are so needed in that community. I could also say to the third party that we can make political statements like, "Why are we are not recognizing access week?" but the bottom line is that those who need it are caught up in debates, like mother and father fighting over a kid while the individual is starving. If we put our resources together, we can do a lot for those who are shut out of the system.

We know that all governments and all parties that have been in government have tried to make access to those who need it so badly. When we were the government we were criticized for not moving quickly enough, and we have criticized the present government for not moving quickly enough on certain regulations. That's our job.

We know that people have been suffering in regard to transportation and have asked us for proper transportation, and access to employment, access to education, access to housing, access to recreation and of course access to communication.

To talk for a moment about a couple of things that come to mind, I know of many people in the business community who are making great efforts. I want to applaud those in the business community who are making those efforts to increase access to employment and to communication and the works, even access to housing. But I also feel things can move much quicker.

One of the main matters about this is that not only must we be sensitive to the people who are out there, but it takes us time to understand the pain and suffering they go through day to day to live worthwhile in our society.

I would take the opportunity to appeal to the government, which had at one stage so vigilantly moved to get employment equity in place. As the previous speaker stated, they're proud of the employment equity legislation they brought forward. But the regulations are about six or seven months behind, and we have not seen them. What we have seen at times is that some governments will do something in a patronizing way, leaving those people with a hope that things are happening, and it is not so.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): You voted against it. Why would you want the regulation?

Mr Curling: The Premier himself says I voted against employment equity. The fact is that I knew they would not come through. In December 1993, we voted on the legislation in hope we'd have that regulation here, and that's not here. I appeal to the government to put all its talk into action, and let's have that.

I want to say to those who are advocates for the disabled and all those who are seeking access to continue and to persevere in the things you believe in, because I am convinced that my colleague in the House, Lyn McLeod -- we have from time to time sat down and spoken about some of the better things we can do for the disabled, but we feel there's a lot to be done. The education is not only on the disabled but on those who are able to understand those suffering.

On behalf of my party, I just wanted to say that we are believers in the fact that there is still more to be done. And we are of course very mindful of the huge cuts in public expenditures, cutting funds for the disabled. I hope the government will come to its senses and realize that every cut in the budget for the disabled means suffering for some family, goes beyond those who are disabled, and that the families are those who have to carry that burden.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Thursday, May 12, the member for York Mills (Mr Turnbull) rose on a question of privilege to inform the House that his privilege of freedom of speech had been circumscribed by virtue of the fact that the government had not sought the approval of the House for any of its budgets. The member also indicated that the way in which the government was choosing to conduct its business with respect to the budget motion constituted a violation of his right to vote.

The member submitted that whereas budget motions have been fully debated and voted upon every year except certain election years in the period from 1980 to 1990, no budget motion had been voted on since that time. In fact, at the present time there are two budget motions on the Orders and Notices paper, one for 1993 and the other for 1994. According to the member, this state of affairs violated the customs and traditions of the House.

Let me begin my response to the member's concern by referring members to standing order 57(a), which reads as follows:

"The budget motion, upon proper notice, shall be moved by the Treasurer following the completion of the debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, and amendments, and in so doing the Treasurer shall present the budget and budget papers."

Members will know that this rule imposes minimal restrictions or requirements with respect to the budget process, unlike the situation in other Canadian and Commonwealth jurisdictions. Many of those jurisdictions have rules that require a certain number of days of debate on the budget motion, that give precedence to the budget motion over other orders, and that require the question on the budget motion to be put to the House at the designated time. By contrast, this House has no such restrictions or requirements.

Let me now make a few remarks about the nature of privilege. As Speaker Edighoffer stated (at page 147 of the Journals for December 10, 1985), "It is only in very extreme circumstances that there can come to the House a legitimate case of privilege on the basis of the real and accepted and traditional definition of parliamentary privilege." Citation 24 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne states that "[t]he privileges of Parliament are rights which are 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.'"

In reviewing the usual parliamentary authorities, I have found no authority for the proposition that the failure of the House to vote on the budget motion, or the failure of the government to call the order for resuming the adjourned debate on the budget motion, is a matter that touches the privilege of freedom of speech. Indeed, Erskine May states (at page 86 of the 21st edition) that "the privilege of freedom of speech protects what is said in debate," and that is not the kind of situation that is before me now.

To this I might add that standing order 54 provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in these standing orders, government business will be taken up in the discretion of the government House leader or a minister acting in his or her place."

On this point, I refer members to two rulings by Speaker Stokes. In the first one, the Speaker was faced with a situation in which a member rising on a question of privilege alleged that the acting government House leader was preventing the House from considering an important matter by not scheduling it for debate. The Speaker made the following remarks (at page 2292 of Hansard for May 29, 1979):

"[I]t is not the responsibility of the Chair to order the business of this House.... The ordering of business is the responsibility of the government House leader in consultation with the other two House leaders.... [Y]ou wouldn't want the Chair to be forcing its position on the ordering of the business of this House or its committees. It must be resolved by the proper authorities. There is nothing I can do about it."

In the second case, a member had objected to the government's introduction of the supply bill before the budget had been approved. The Speaker indicated (at page 5362 of Hansard for December 12, 1980) that he was "at the pleasure of the House" on the matter.

In summary, let me reiterate that in certain Parliaments the standing orders resemble ours, others have prescribed a limit of days for the debate and still others impose an obligation to vote on the budget. If the members want to establish a more specific budget procedure, amendments would be required to our standing orders.

In the meantime, as previously stated, it is not the prerogative of the Chair to order the business of the House. In addition, I can find no authority that supports the argument that the failure of the government to call any particular item of business for the consideration of the House violates the privilege of freedom of speech.

In closing, then, I find that no prima facie case of privilege has been made out, but I do thank the member for York Mills for raising his concerns and, in particular, for the way in which he presented his case to me and to the House.

1410

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: By way of clarification to your ruling, I would ask you, do I understand you to say that in fact there is no requirement in this House to have any debate or vote on budget bills and, by extension of that, do I understand that we would also be in the position that there would be no requirement for debate or votes on throne speeches? That would be the implication that I would draw from your ruling, Mr Speaker. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

The Speaker: The member raises a different matter. First, as I had indicated earlier, there is nothing in the standing orders which would compel a vote on the budget. The member talks about budget bills, and that is a different matter. We have a prescribed routine for the throne speech clearly outlined in our standing orders. But the member is absolutely correct that there is nothing in our standing orders currently that prescribes a vote on the budget. As I stated, if members of the House wish to change that, they indeed have a process by which they can accomplish a change.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): To the Attorney General, an article in the May 16 edition of the Toronto Star outlined the circumstance of a particular tenant in a facility in Toronto. This woman had been stalked by an individual for some eight months. A series of charges were levied, including a charge under section 264, I believe it is, of the Criminal Code, the stalking charge. In addition, there were several other charges laid. At the end of the circumstance, your crown attorney basically went with a plea bargain and didn't bother pursuing the criminal harassment charge.

Can the Attorney General advise me today what directions have been given to crown attorneys with respect to the administration of this section and its charges, how many plea bargains have opted out of addressing the criminal harassment charges, and what she intends to do about making sure this section is fully enforced in the province of Ontario?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): As the member is well aware, I would not be in any position to comment on the particulars of any particular case.

It is important for members in this House to understand that decisions around the early resolution of a situation where there are multiple charges depends very much on the facts in a particular case: the situation around the particular offender, whether there may have been previous occasions on which the person had been charged or convicted of similar offences, and so on.

Those kinds of decisions are made and are presented to the court as a resolution to the issue. There may, in many cases, be many conditions that are attached to whatever kind of conviction is registered. There may well be an agreement about the way in which this sort of thing happens. Without having all of the details -- as none of us would have except those intimately involved in the case, including the judge to whom a decision is presented -- we could all be back-seat drivers in the criminal justice system all the time without having those facts at our fingers and being sure that indeed the decisions are being made appropriately.

When this law came into effect -- earlier than we expected, frankly, on August 1 of this year -- we immediately alerted the crown attorneys from our ministry, and I believe the police were alerted from the Solicitor General's ministry, about the way in which this law should be applied.

I do not keep statistics in the ministry about the resolution of every charge, in the sense that -- and it's important for people to understand -- there are 4.5 million charges in this province every year.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: What we are doing, however, is that in the locations where we have put the investment strategy into place, we are monitoring to ensure that the most serious charges --

The Chair: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- for which there is evidence to proceed under the tests in terms of disclosure of evidence and early resolution as set out in the Martin committee report, if those tests are there, then procedures will go ahead.

Mr Elston: For an individual who had no specific information about any of this material, we sure got a lot of stuff out of that individual.

But let me say this much: When we contacted the crown attorney, he advised us that in this particular case the section was not to apply because the criminal harassment section, he was told, only applies to harassment of women by former boyfriends or former husbands.

When I read the section again, just to clarify in my own mind, it says nothing about any kind of interpersonal relationships having been established. It seems to me that the crown attorneys should receive some direction from you that this is to deal with harassment of any individual, whether or not there was any previous or prior interrelationship carrying on.

I just happen to have a copy of your manual, which talks about resolution discussions, which used to be called in the old days "plea bargaining," and it still is plea bargaining.

Can you tell me where in here, in the manuals, you have given any consideration to requiring your crown attorneys to forcefully implement the provisions or follow the provisions of the criminal harassment section, where you have directed them, as you have in situations where firearms are involved under section 85 offences, that there will not be plea bargaining except under extenuating circumstances?

Can you advise me if my copy of the guide to the crown attorneys is out of date and if you have given them instructions to forcefully enforce 264, the criminal harassment section, when a harassment charge is laid, and under what circumstances, if that has not been done, you are now going to tell them to enforce the section?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I think the member and the other members of this House know how seriously I regard this issue of the stalking law; in fact, I took an unusual position in front of the federal committee in order to ensure that some of the concerns we had about its applicability and our ability to prosecute were indeed changed. The member is quite right. We regard this very seriously.

The full direction, as with the firearms direction, has not yet been formalized. There is a letter that is also in the crown manual, under the stalking section, which was issued to crown attorneys as this law came into effect, telling them what to look for. We don't issue the formal directive until we see how the law is actually working, what the case law is and what the burden of proof that is being accepted by the court on this is.

One of the issues, for example, is, how is the court going to interpret the requirement that this will be knowingly?

We don't know that at this point in time and so we are going through the process, looking at the cases that have been brought forward to formalize the final direction. But the interim direction makes it very clear, I think, and the member is quite right, that indeed this is not a law that pertains only to people who have been in relationships. It may be that those cases will be more prevalent than others, but not necessarily. We all know about the Anne Murray case, for example, or the David Letterman case.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: It is intended to deal with far more than that. I can assure the member that as we develop those processes we are doing that in consultation with the victim advocates in this community, and they agree with us that we need to be giving very strong direction to the crowns. We consider it very serious that it not be bargained away, if indeed the burden of proof can be met.

1420

Mr Elston: It's really interesting that we get this after the fact that one of her own crown attorneys has said -- and this is a paraphrase from what was told to one of our research individuals -- that this is not to apply to situations where there is not a boyfriend or a former husband who is harassing the individual. I hope that there will be an immediate directive from you, by your hand, which clarifies that.

We spent some time in issuing our paper on safe communities in which we have said quite clearly that a number of steps have to be taken to secure the wellbeing of women in our society. It actually falls in line, in my view, with our paper to have the directive which says all women are to be protected under that situation, not just former spouses, not just former girlfriends from boyfriends and things like that and that to make a safe community, all have to be protected.

Would the minister agree with our paper, Safe Communities, that those steps must now be taken and that she can take a very quick step by ensuring that crown attorneys do not plea-bargain away, through resolution discussions, the safety and security of women who have been harassed and who have been targeted by stalkers in this society of ours?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have already told the member that that is the intention of both our policy and the Solicitor General. We have both issued instructions around the stalking law that do not accord with what he hears a Liberal researcher heard from a crown attorney.

If the member would like to tell me who that crown attorney is, I would be very happy to ensure that the misinformation is cleared up, because that is not the information that our crown attorneys indeed have, and it is not the instruction that the police have in terms of the Solicitor General's directive. We take this very seriously.

I will not say to the member that I necessarily agree entirely with his prop, his Safe Communities paper, because in fact I have not read through that particular piece of this in great detail because, as I read through it, it did not seem to me to be anything new. In fact, it seemed to me to be exactly what we have been doing and what we have been saying in this House we have been doing all along.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Premier.

You will note today that Pollution Probe and the Lung Association released a report which documents the complete inaction of your government concerning the serious problem of urban air pollution. The report states that southern Ontario has the worst chronic smog problem in Canada. According to the Lung Association, children playing outside, people with chronic lung diseases and those who happen to exercise vigorously out of doors are exposed to a very high level of risk as a result of poor air quality conditions in the summertime in urban areas throughout the province.

Pollution Probe, in conjunction with the Lung Association, has identified a number of actions which your government could do in order to reduce the amount of air pollution being generated and thus reduce the risk of health problems in our province's urban centres, but your record is, in a word, described as "inaction." You have not lived up to the commitments made by your government with other provincial governments to combat air pollution throughout the country.

My question is: What in fact is your government doing to address the serious problem of smog and health problems that are associated with it?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I naturally am sorry that the minister's not here to answer your question, because that's what ministers are for and because he has a much better idea of exactly the detailed interventions that are under way at the ministerial level.

I would say to the honourable member that I obviously look forward to reading the report from Pollution Probe. With respect to the interventions that the minister has made and proposals that have been forthcoming from the ministry, we are very determined to take action on the subject of CFCs, on the subject of the quality of the ozone with respect to reducing SO₂ emissions, to dealing with the car emission question and to working with our fellow governments in meeting those standards.

I would say to the honourable member that if he would like a more detailed reply, I'm sure he can get one from the minister and I'll make sure that he gets it.

Mr Offer: By way of supplementary, I believe this is a question that must be posed to the leader of the government and not just the Minister of Environment. Your actions in this area have really been zero. Since coming to office, your government has killed the clean air program, you have not acted on air pollution laws, you have ignored the problem of vapour emissions from gasoline and you have initiated what is referred to as a completely inadequate test program of voluntary vehicle emissions.

Mr Premier, Pollution Probe says that your voluntary program on auto emissions will not work. Your program will not get the polluting cars off the road. Your program will not stop one iota of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide or volatile organic compounds from going into the air. Your program will not improve Ontario's air quality. Your program will not protect Ontarians' health.

Your government made a commitment to combat air pollution in this province. You made a commitment through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. It was a serious commitment, I thought, at the time. My question is, why is your government not living up to your commitment?

Hon Mr Rae: I would take issue with the honourable member in the most polite and cheery way that I can. I don't believe that his allegation is at all true. We have been living up to our commitments. The minister has been living up to his commitments. The emissions program which we're bringing forward we think is going to lead to a good, province-wide program with respect to vehicle emissions and we think it's the wise and sound way to go in terms of devising a good program for the whole province.

I would say to the honourable member that again, when we look at this issue over time, it is something on which we're making steady progress as a province, in which air quality is improving, in which our standards are increasing and in which any objective assessment of the facts would I think reach the same conclusion.

Mr Offer: My allegations, which you referred to as being untrue, are founded on your record, and your record is abysmal in this area, Mr Premier. Your government has had its knuckles rapped today by Pollution Probe and the Lung Association. You are not living up to the commitment made by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment in 1982 and a commitment by your government, and you are not living up to the commitment which you made in 1990. You are not overhauling air pollution laws. You are not doing anything on gasoline vapour recovery. You are not doing anything to set higher tailpipe standards. You are not doing anything to lower gasoline volatility and toxicity. You have not implemented a mandatory vehicle emissions testing program. Your actions in the area of the environment are chaotic, they're incompetent and they're irresponsible.

My question is, with all due respect, just what is your government doing in this area?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I don't think the member's rhetoric --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I don't know what impact it's having on the immediate air quality around the honourable member, but I would say that in terms of adding to a substantive discussion, I don't think it helps.

I would say to the honourable member that if you look at the actions we've taken over time, I think they are effective. I think that our environmental record, when compared with that of any other government in the history of this province or with any other government in the country, will compare very, very favourably, and I think that record, which is growing all the time and which is being improved upon all the time, is going to stand us in very good stead.

1430

SPOUSAL BENEFITS LEGISLATION

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My question is to the Chair of Management Board and the government House leader. This afternoon we will begin debate on Bill 167 in this Legislature, which changes the definition of "spouse." Members of our caucus do not support this bill. It has been widely reported in the media this morning that you plan significant amendments to this legislation. I think that you owe it to the members of the Legislature, who have been unclear as to where they stand on Bill 167 and this issue, that if you do intend to significantly amend this bill you should be telling us today: What is your position?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I thank the House leader for the third party for his question. I'm not sure that the government either plans its amendments in stories in the media or decides the content of its amendments based on media stories.

The debate is starting today around a piece of legislation that we introduced a week and a half ago. We're prepared to listen during that debate and during hearings that are likely to ensue around this piece of legislation, around this very sensitive issue.

We have not sat down and prepared in advance amendments to this legislation. From that perspective, we are not prepared to deal with the issue of tabling amendments at this point, but we're certainly prepared to listen during the course of the debate.

Mr Eves: The minister assumes, by talking about public hearings, that Bill 167 is going to be carried on second reading vote. That is certainly not a given, I would suggest to him.

I would also point out to him that his Attorney General was musing in the media this morning about the fact that this legislation may well be significantly amended. Can I take it from the House leader's remarks here today that the government has no intention to significantly amend Bill 167 and that you will be proceeding with the bill as printed, to be debated in the Legislature this afternoon?

Hon Mr Charlton: The debate this afternoon will proceed on the bill as printed. As I've said, and I repeat -- I think it's as plain as I can make it -- we're prepared to listen throughout the debate. The bill that has been tabled is the bill that the government intends to proceed with at this point.

Mr Eves: If you are bent on proceeding with Bill 167, which is a bill, I might add, that significantly changes some of the fundamental principles of society, then it's our belief that each and every member of this Legislature, all 130 of us, should be given the opportunity to be here to vote on this significant piece of legislation. There should be no room or excuse for any member of this Legislature not to be here to record his or her vote on this very significant issue.

Would you not agree then that we can agree among ourselves here that this vote will be held next Monday so every single member of the Legislature will know that they are to be here to express their point of view and their opinion and to vote on this legislation?

Hon Mr Charlton: As the House leader for the third party knows, and knows well, the whip of each of the caucuses does his or her work with respect to the attendance of members at votes. The government House leaders try as best we can to discuss the scheduling of votes when they're most appropriate. Sometimes we can reach agreement; sometimes we can't.

I will do my best during the course of this debate to accommodate all who wish to participate in it.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Health. Since June is Seniors' Month in the province of Ontario and since the minister has responsibilities for long-term care reform, I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions about her priorities, not only within her ministry but for her government, when approximately 1.2 million Ontario seniors over the age of 65 have been patiently waiting in this province for over nine years for the completion of long-term care reform.

Many have been writing me, as well as members of my caucus, questioning the government's sense of priorities. As my colleague raised in a question earlier, the whole notion of same-sex benefits seems to be more important a priority for the government at this time than to address this nine-year commitment that the Liberal government attempted to implement over five years and didn't, and now three and a half years of the current NDP government.

My question, Minister, is, could you please inform the House exactly how much new money was earmarked by the Treasurer to you in the recent budget for the implementation of the multiservice agencies that are required as the final phase of long-term care reform in Ontario? How much new money was earmarked in the recent provincial budget?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I am searching for the money, for the actual amount, which I don't have at my fingertips, but I can say to the member that in this year's actual budget, the increase in expenditures on long-term care was 5.3%. I will find the figures, but that's a very major increase.

Mr Jackson: During the lockup we were advised that the 5% is there, but it is not inclusive of the new moneys that are required to implement the long-term care reform aspects involved in these multiservice agencies, in other words, the bureaucratic network of coordinated agencies for this province.

The fact is that in October 1991 Bob Rae's government took $75 million away from chronic care hospitals to finance the front-end phase of long-term care reform. In the spring of 1993 the same Bob Rae government increased user fees for seniors in nursing homes by $150 million. That's where they got most of the $647 million that they've announced as new money they would bring into the system.

My question, Minister, is, why did you, in September 1993, in your speech to the annual meeting of the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations, reassure them that you were on track for the time lines, that you were on track with the money commitment and the completion of long-term care, yet I have in my possession, as do seniors' organizations in Ontario, a letter from you dated May 17, where you now indicate that you are approaching this whole issue of multiservice agencies with interim and transitional strategies and you will not make the time-line commitments that you promised seniors in this province last year?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member couldn't be more wrong. After four years of his government, five years of the Liberal government, 10 years of talking about long-term care reform, it's on its way. It's happening. It's happening all across this province in a way that is unprecedented.

We currently spend $2.1 billion for long-term care services. In the next two years $199 million will be invested in the expansion of long-term care community-based services. The integrated homemaker program has been expanded last year from 20 to 38 areas. New placement coordination services expanded from 23 across the province to 36 across the province. They will all be up and running on July 1 this year.

A new levels-of-care funding methodology is in place for facilities. Just today I informed municipal homes for the aged and those others that had been red-circled that this red circling would continue to the end of this fiscal year. There are discussions with aboriginal communities. There is enormous progress.

The multiservice agencies and the work the district health councils are doing across this province involve in some areas, in Simcoe, his own member's area, 400 volunteers; in Niagara, where I was on Friday, 300 volunteers.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: It is moving, Mr Speaker.

1440

Mr Jackson: Minister, nobody's challenging that you've been spending millions of dollars studying this issue nine ways sideways.

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: I didn't say the government was wrong. I would like to indicate to you who is saying the government's approach is wrong. I've got a letter from Tony Fusco, who is the chair of the long-term care steering committee of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council. In his letter of resignation, he says to you:

"I have for some months been plagued with the moral and ethical implications of assisting to implement a provincial government policy which I am now convinced is not at all responsive to the situation and smacks of the double veneer of political and ministerial staff for the self-preservation of a civil worker caste system."

You're building a bureaucracy as the seniors are asking you for services.

I'll tell you who else says you're wrong, Minister. The Toronto Star in its editorial on April 4 says that the government, in its lackadaisical approach, is stalling that reform and our seniors deserve better. The minister is saying that the Toronto Star is wrong.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Jackson: Finally, perhaps the most compelling letter of all comes from Jane Leitch, the chair of the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance for Long-Term Care Reform in Ontario, on April 28. She says:

"The results of your approach and your delay is that one million Ontario seniors and their families will face extreme hardships, with only the wealthy being able to afford adequate care in their later years."

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Jackson: "If the system is not restructured in time, our system will collapse."

Minister, tell me why you think Jane Leitch and 1.2 million seniors, the Toronto Star editorial board and Tony Fusco are so wrong about your approach.

Hon Mrs Grier: Because, in talking and in meeting with district health councils, with long-term care committees, with agencies and with seniors all across this province, I know that the approach our government is taking responds to a major consultation that occurred and meets the needs of seniors.

I'm glad of the member's interest. I hope that when we introduce legislation to put in place the community-based, volunteer, community-led approach to the integration and coordination and one-stop shopping for seniors across this province which seniors have asked for, have pleaded for, for many years, the member will be standing up, saying, "Hurrah, that's what you ought to do," because that's what the seniors of this province will be saying.

TVONTARIO HEADQUARTERS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, and it's to pursue the TVOntario issue. I heard yesterday that it's possible that TVOntario, which is a well-known agency of the Ontario government, might actually build itself a brand-new building.

The minister will know that the debt of the province has gone to $90 billion, more than double what it was when you came into office. The credit rating agencies have now downgraded the province three times. We're at the edge now of a very serious debt problem. Yet all of the money markets and all of the people in this community can only look on with amazement when we see in Metropolitan Toronto one out of every five office spaces is vacant and the government is actually contemplating building a brand-new building to house TVOntario.

My question is this: Will you not simply say to TVOntario that this is out of the question and instruct them to investigate using existing available space and tell them not to build a new building in Metropolitan Toronto, Minister?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): As I indicated yesterday, under both of the past governments, TVO has continued to be expected to operate in a very poor building which both of the past governments have continued to allow them to pay very high rent for. With their lease coming to an end, they've extended the lease to be able to allow themselves to look for new facilities in terms of a good broadcast facility with the instructions from this government that any move that they make must mean that their rent will be no more than it is now, and less if at all possible.

No government in this province has got the tremendous record of creativity for expenditure reduction that this government has, and we intend to continue with those kinds of practices in the best interests of the taxpayers of this province.

Mr Phillips: That's an unsatisfactory answer, because what you said there is that the only criterion given them is that they must end up with cheaper costs than they're currently paying. That's a given. Anybody who's ever moved in Metropolitan Toronto in the last three years has ended up paying less money. That's a given.

My question is this: We have gotten literally dozens of calls from organizations that own buildings in Metropolitan Toronto where they are having difficulty paying their taxes. Their vacancy rates are huge. One out of five office buildings in this Metropolitan Toronto area is vacant. They cannot believe that TVOntario is actually looking at going out and borrowing money, building a new building --

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): They're not.

Mr Phillips: The Premier is saying they're not, so all I need from the minister is this: Will you give two guarantees? One is that TVOntario will not go out and build a new building. The second is that there will be a public opportunity for existing owners of buildings to bid on the TVOntario space and that the whole process will be public so that people who own buildings in Metropolitan Toronto can be assured that their bid was fairly considered. Those two questions: Rule out building a new building, and ensure that this is a public tendered process open to the public.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: TVO has been following a very public tendered process with a number of developers. It's that process of good faith which they've been acting in that I'm hesitant to get involved and interfering with other than to say that it is very clear to TVO, and I have made it very clear to TVO, that the glut in the real estate market that exists right now is clearly a factor that this government would be taking into consideration in any decision we make with regard to a new location for them.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): My question is to the Premier about his trip to China recently. It was five years ago this week, Mr Premier, that Chinese tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square, killing hundreds of university students who were demonstrating against dictatorship. At that time, Mr Premier, you joined many political leaders from around the world in expressing your outrage. Can you explain to the public of Ontario why you now appear to be backing down from your convictions to deal firmly with the government of China on human rights issues?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm glad the honourable member asked the question, because I think it's important that we address this together as a House. I'm certainly glad to answer the member very clearly.

This government has expressed on every official occasion -- and the minister for international trade is not here but would say to him that we have expressed on every official occasion in which we have had any official meetings with senior ministers from the government of China -- our continuing concern as a province with respect to the human rights situation.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Put your money where your mouth is.

Hon Mr Rae: Now I have members opposite from the Liberal Party saying, "Put your money where your mouth is." Well, I want the members from the Liberal Party to reflect on what they're saying, because it runs completely counter to the policies of the government of Canada and to the policies that are being followed by every provincial government.

We are all acting, if I may say so, on a concerted basis. What we are saying is that the best way to effect human rights reforms in China is for us to be engaged in China, for us to be continuing our exchanges with China, and specifically for us to be involved in terms of the Jiangsu exchange, for us to be involved at every level.

I believe that a more open China with respect to the economy will produce a more open China with respect to political and human rights on a broad front. I believe that those in China who are seeking reform, those in China who are seeking change, those in China who are trying to open up look to Canada and in fact look to our own province to provide for that kind of leadership. So I would say to the honourable member --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- that we are acting entirely consistently with our approach on human rights, that we are acting entirely consistently with our approach to openness with respect to China, and that expanding trade with China, and expanding trade at this time, is exactly the right thing to be doing in terms of human rights in that part of the world.

1450

Mr Sterling: Mr Premier, you were quoted in a Toronto newspaper as saying the key for Canadians is to get their act together and be more aggressive if they are to win contracts and trade in China. We have a demonstration by President Clinton in the United States and our Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, who is taking the same tack with regard to trade.

I think the people of Ontario and the people of Canada are asking: Where are the leaders in the western world who are going to speak up for the thousands of political prisoners in the jails of China? Do we have any leadership in the western world speaking for these people in a firm way?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I would say to the honourable member that if it's now the position of the Conservative Party of this province that we should not be advancing our economic interests in China, and if that's now the position of the Liberal Party in the province of Ontario, I hope they will express that publicly. If they're saying they would not advocate any exchanges between Ontario and China because of the human rights situation there, I want the Conservative Party to say that on the record, because I think that's a truly reactionary policy.

I would say to the honourable member that it is entirely consistent with the best traditions of this province --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): This is paper politics, Bob. It was your policy when you were --

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- for us to be open, for us to be advanced. This in fact is a position that's even being advocated by people within the Chinese community in this province. In my meetings with the Chinese community in this province which I've been having over the last year and a half, they've been saying to me, "Premier, you've got to have the human exchanges, you've got to be there and you've got to raise these questions," and that's exactly what we've been doing.

The suggestion that somehow --

Mr Stockwell: This is not what you said --

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- if we build a wall up around this province, we will advance the cause of human rights one single inch in China or in any other country in which people are facing human rights difficulty --

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that is a truly reactionary and short-sighted position and one that is inconsistent with the best democratic and open traditions of the people of this province.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, I'm aware of our government's industrial strategy and its sectoral approach to economic development. Many people would have read in the newspapers recently --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Gary Wilson: -- about an announcement regarding the plastics sector. Given that Du Pont is in my community and indeed is a major company in eastern Ontario and that it is involved in the plastics industry, could you tell me how this announcement will benefit a company like Du Pont?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The sectoral development approach is one that looks at a sector as a whole; it doesn't deal with individual firms. But I firmly believe that any activities we take that strengthen sectors of our economy and the performance and the competitiveness of those sectors certainly benefits individual firms like Du Pont and others.

The announcement that was made was a joint business-labour-government announcement in which we received the advisory committee's sectoral strategy and announced our endorsement of the strategy as it was set out in the broadest way and our commitment to work with them to develop the specific initiatives that have been set out in there.

This is an important industry, and Du Pont of course is an important player in the industry. There are over 60,000 workers across Ontario in this sector and it's a $13-billion sector. But we recognize in the work that we've done in the sectoral strategy with them that there is a trade deficit with international jurisdictions with the plastics sector. So we've set together goals to try and overcome that to improve the competitiveness and enhance the performance of that sector.

As I said earlier, I think that overall any initiative in that vein will only strengthen individual firms within the sector, and it's through that benefit that Du Pont and others will see, I think, some increased benefits as a result of this activity.

Mr Gary Wilson: Minister, I know how successful this strategy has been in other sectors of the economy, and I'm wondering when the strategy will be implemented in the plastics sector.

Hon Ms Lankin: The sector strategy set out the results of the work that was done, in which there was a very comprehensive analysis done of the status of the sector, looking at its strengths, at its weaknesses, at the opportunities and developing an action plan for implementation that would address those weaknesses and build upon the strengths, looking at areas of international capability, technological capability, raising skill levels of the workforce, clustering of firms, pre-competitive cooperative R and D, a number of areas.

The strategy sets out suggestions for specific initiatives, and we will be working over the next few short months with the sector to develop the business plans to bring those forward for approval for funding under the sector partnership plan. I can't give you a date that it will be ready to roll -- in two months or three months -- but I expect within that time frame we will have approvals under way and be able to make further announcements with respect to specific initiatives.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the minister responsible for employment equity. Recently, it was discovered that the minister responsible for employment equity approved and endorsed the process of hiring Paul Scott, the chief executive and chief administrative officer of the Employment Equity Commission. He was hired to set up the plan to see that systemic discrimination in regard to employment be eliminated.

In this particular case, it seems, the commission violated all the rules to encourage equal access to employment. Will the minister please explain to the House what procedure was followed in hiring for this top position of the Employment Equity Commission and whether or not it was advertised; if so, the number of candidates considered, and if this is not the case, explain why the commission's top positions are not under the same scrutiny that the commission demands of the private sector?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Citizenship.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I would also actually thank the member opposite for the question because I think there's been a lot of misinformation out there and it's a good opportunity for us to explain what has occurred.

First of all, I think that all the members opposite and we all know that there has been a process for many years of no political interference in hiring and firing and promoting of the OPS. I think we would all agree that those days of political interference in the OPS are well gone and that we would not want those days to recur. So the hiring of civil servants is not in the domain of the minister; it's in the domain of the deputy minister, as well it should be.

There was a process in place. The position that was filled is a temporary position. Although I'm not involved in the hiring and firing, I have been asked if there were people who applied, and yes, there were. There was an open process that is usually used by the OPS for temporary positions and that was followed.

Mr Curling: You can see that the system is a farce in how it goes about its employment equity situation. The minister now is telling me that she can't interfere and that she can't do that and that the minister is at arm's length.

It has come to my attention that this under-the-table hiring, which is what I call it, is not an isolated case. I understand that many others were put into their positions under similar circumstances. Of course, if you talk about a temporary thing for 18 months, who has the experience? Where is that access circumventing the process?

Will the minister explain to the House now how a three-member executive development committee, which you are saying, "No interference in the political process," headed by none other than David Agnew, has the authority to abuse the principles of employment equity by closing the doors to potential applicants for positions within the commission? It seems to me that it happens in other ministries too. I'd ask you to examine all the other ministries that are doing that same circumvention, and many people who have been pushed out of jobs in the way that you're talking about non-involvement of political process.

Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, I want to reiterate very clearly that ministers are not involved in the hiring and firing of the OPS. They might have been under your government, but they're not under this government and should not be. I think we all agree with that.

What I really want to be clear about is that employment equity is about removing barriers, is about being inclusive, is about making sure that everybody has an equal opportunity, and then, at the end of the day, the person who has the qualifications for the position is hired.

I cannot resist this. Mr Speaker, I want to say this without rancour and I don't want you to think that I'm trying to bait the bears, but it is with great irony that I look across the floor, and somebody who is trying to say that he is purporting to be in favour of employment equity voted against employment equity all three times. What does he want? Does he want employment equity and fairness in the workplace or does he want to have the status quo? Make up your mind. Don't start defending it now because you lost your opportunity.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

1500

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As you are aware, Mr Minister, the Skerryvore development road, which runs through the Shawanaga First Nation, has been closed as of 12:01 am this morning. What are you doing to ensure that residents and ratepayers in the Skerryvore development have continued road access to the residences?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I appreciate the question. As the member knows, my staff have given him copies of all correspondence we've had involving this matter and have given him a complete, up-to-date briefing on everything that's happened. I appreciate the fact that he wants to cooperate and try and find a solution to this problem.

As he knows, as a result of the decision of the courts, it was decided that this was private property and obviously that the band had the right legally to close the road on what amounts to its private property. At the same time, we have been in regular contact with Chief Pamajewon and Reeve Stewart and they have both acted in a very low-key and, I would say, non-inflammatory way in the hope that we can reach some consensus.

I am pleased that the band has said that it in no way wants to punish or create hardship for the some 240 cottagers, of whom about 30 are full-time residents. Our staff are in touch with the band. We have said that we are willing to sit down with the band at any time. The chief, if he is watching, has my assurance that we are willing to sit down and negotiate a reasonable solution to this problem.

Mr Eves: I understand that this is a difficult problem, but I also understand that we have residents and ratepayers who no longer can get to their residences. One week ago I asked the Premier and the ministers of Transportation, Municipal Affairs and native affairs to meet with myself, the Shawanaga First Nation, the township of The Archipelago and representatives of the Skerryvore ratepayers in order to try to avoid this unfortunate situation. To date, there has been no such meeting. To date, your negotiations with the first nation have failed.

Would it not make sense, Mr Minister, to have everybody concerned with an interest in this matter involved at the same table at the same time, and would it also not make sense to assure the Skerryvore residents that another road will be built around native lands to assure permanent access to their homes and cottages?

Hon Mr Philip: The member realizes, and indeed I spoke to him on Friday, that at the time in which he proposed such a meeting I explained to him, as did my staff, that we thought that if a meeting of all of the people together was to be productive, we would first have to do a one-on-one preparation for that meeting. At that time, the honourable member said to me that he agreed with --

Mr Eves: That was done Saturday morning.

Hon Mr Philip: Well, I'm sorry; if the member wants an answer, then he's going to have to stop yelling over me. I'm trying to answer him. I hope that we can have the same kind of conversation here that we had on the phone, because I thought we had a reasonable conversation by phone and indeed earlier today when I briefed him. Maybe the question isn't necessary. We get along better outside the House than in the House.

I do want to say that we are working with them. We are willing to look at any possible solution, and I trust that we will have a reasonable solution as soon as possible. I don't have to tell the band that it is possible to build another route on township property. I think the Minister of Transportation has already indicated that. But I would prefer that this not be necessary and that's why I say to all parties that our door is open. We are willing to sit down. We will be there immediately the moment they give us an indication that they're willing to talk.

SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS CONSERVATION

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The erosion of the Scarborough Bluffs, a distinctive asset of the shoreline, has been accelerating, particularly in the Sylvan Avenue area of my riding. This places in jeopardy an important component of the Lake Ontario waterfront that would be enjoyed by future generations.

Minister, I recently received a letter from you which outlined that the work in the area was considered high priority. My question is, what action is being taken to secure funding for the Sylvan Avenue project for 1994?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for the question and I know that for the constituency he represents this is an important issue.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has committed $25,000 to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for themselves and their consultants to undertake an environmental study report. I understand that report has been completed and that the authority has provided some additional engineering information which brings us up to date in terms of the chronology of events on the bluffs. So this has improved the ranking of the project, and I would expect that some time later on this spring or summer we will be in a position to announce some funding for the project.

Mr Frankford: Minister, does this mean that I can assure my constituents that funding will be secured for 1994 and that work will be starting this summer?

Hon Mr Hampton: Once you're involved with the environmental assessment process, there are a number of issues that have to be taken into account. There is a 45-day waiting period that must be satisfied after a report has been submitted. So that will take some time. If there is no objection and no request for a full-blown environmental assessment, approval could be obtained, as I understand it, by June 24 of this year.

I understand that the design of the project may have to change to take into account some of the shoreline processes and to allow for enhanced aquatic and terrestrial habitat, but I think that can be worked out.

Our view is that we should be able to provide some funding. We're encouraging the conservation authorities to also pursue the Canada-Ontario infrastructure works program through municipalities, as that may also assist with some of the funding.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, Ontario farmers are continuing to face a difficult financial environment. In the face of continuing low prices and rising interest rates, the NDP has made further deep cuts to the Agriculture budget. The minister has said he is helping farmers in non-financial ways, but does he not agree that farmers are still facing a tough financial situation and need your help?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): This government has done a lot for farmers. We've done it in different ways, in ways that are much more effective and actually assist agriculture and rural economies.

I'll give you an example. Under the Liberal administration interest rates rose, and the Liberal government decided to use interest rate assistance programs. For several years they handed out $40 million, $50 million in interest assistance. That money went directly from the farmer's mailbox to the banker's hands. None of that money was available for the use of farmers or assistance in order to allow farmers to continue, and we had a number of farm bankruptcies.

Under our programs or new initiatives, we've worked with financial institutions to provide alternative mechanisms for finance through the rural loan pool. FarmPlus, for example, and the feeder finance program that is available are programs that provide farmers with competitive interest rates. We use existing institutions to provide that capital and those resources for farmers to continue farming.

1510

Mrs Fawcett: Minister, it is very interesting that you really didn't answer the question. You continue to talk about other programs, but what programs have you cut? That is quite a long list.

Another concern is one Ontario Hydro has revealed, that one of the international investments it is considering is for a non-governmental-organization sustainable agriculture project in South America.

At a time when the province is cutting assistance for Ontario agriculture, and I believe it was at least $34 million, and is concentrating instead on agriculture labour legislation, the average Ontario farmer feels their businesses are less and less sustainable every day.

The minister knows that one of the farmers' major monthly operating costs is their hydro bill. I can imagine how Ontario farmers feel when they send in their monthly payment for their hydro bill and then see Hydro contemplating spending their money to make farming in South America sustainable.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mrs Fawcett: At a time when the government is slashing funding to our own agriculture industry, does the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs feel that this South American agriculture funding is a good investment of Ontario Hydro's limited resources?

Will the minister, using his incredible Rural Affairs powers, encourage Hydro to keep agriculture sustainable here in Ontario? Minister, will you please talk to the Minister of Environment and Energy?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The member talks about the reductions in the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs budget. When the member was part of the last administration, if its agriculture policy had included setting up long-term programs as opposed to setting up two- and three-year programs which actually ran out last year, most of that $34 million would not have come off our budget.

There were a number of programs -- red meat, land stewardship programs -- set up as short-term projects which ran out this year. They weren't long-term programs that go on and on, which is what farmers need and what we put in place.

The kinds of things we've supported and put in place obviously are supporting the ethanol industry. The member and her party would do well to talk to her cousins in Ottawa about the importance of ethanol, how important it is to rural communities, how important it is to farmers. This government has supported the ethanol industry through direct moneys and through speaking out on behalf of the farmers.

The other thing, in terms of Ontario Hydro, is that I was one cabinet minister, along with my colleagues, who talked to the Minister of Energy who said, "Look, hydro rates have got to stop going up." We talked to the Minister of Energy and he went to Hydro and acted on it. We have a freeze in place, and the farmers appreciate that.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

I have a particular frustration with this minister. He does not either acknowledge or respond to correspondence. I have at this time a letter that is outstanding more than six months, without even an acknowledgement, let alone a reply. I don't think any minister has a right to ignore another member's correspondence to that degree.

This particular correspondence to the Minister of Community and Social Services deals with the needs of people of this province with developmental disabilities.

This minister knows as well as I do that over 5,000 people came to the front steps of this building to try to convince this government that it had an obligation to maintain the funding for programs for those people with those very special needs.

Last December in this House my private member's resolution was supported by a very strong majority to ask this government to look at meeting a commitment for these people with special needs, this very government that always has said it cares for the vulnerable people in our society.

I would like to ask this minister today if he has any intention of responding to my correspondence, which is written on behalf of thousands of people in this province. Does he agree that this government has cut $21 million, according to your own estimates, from the programs for people with developmental disabilities, who need our support in this province before we spend a single penny on any other person? People with special needs must be the top priority.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): The member and I have talked privately about some of these issues, and I want to tell her first of all that I'm not quite sure, and I'm just trying to understand, what the problem has been with the particular piece of correspondence, because I know there has been a problem around that.

I also know that the member asked me a question in this House several months ago on this very same issue, and I was able to give her the answers at that time to the question she asked, specifically relating to the private member's resolution that she refers to.

Let me just say on the substance of the issue that she's quite wrong when she says we've reduced funding in this area by $21 million. In fact, we added $21 million last year to the funding for the whole array of developmental services. I can tell the member that as we look at our budget for this year we will be adding further expenditures in this area, and I'll be happy to outline that in the weeks to come.

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition coming from Manor Park constituents. It's addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has representation on JACPAT, (Joint Administrative Committee on Planning and Transportation for the National Capital Region); and

"Whereas JACPAT has received a consultants' report recommending a new bridge across the Ottawa River at Kettle Island which would link up to Highway 417, a provincial highway; and

"Whereas the city and regional councils of Ottawa, representing the wishes of citizens in the Ottawa region, have passed motions rejecting any new bridge within the city of Ottawa because such a bridge and its access roads would provide no benefits to Ottawa but would instead destroy existing neighbourhoods;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To reject the designation of a new bridge corridor at Kettle Island and/or at any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I affix my signature to this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 48 signatures addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the recent announcement by the NDP government to choose three superdumps within the greater Toronto area has disturbed and upset local residents; and

"Whereas these superdumps might have been prevented if Bill 143 had allowed the Interim Waste Authority to look at all alternatives during the site selection process; and

"Whereas we would like to ensure the province of Ontario is making the best decision based on all the facts regarding incineration and long rail-haul and garbage management;

"We demand that the NDP government of Ontario repeal Bill 143, disband the IWA and place a moratorium on the process of finding a landfill to serve all of the greater Toronto area until all alternatives can be properly studied and debated."

I have signed this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): A petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

"Whereas a majority of Canadians believe that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships" -- I don't write them -- "and

"Whereas societal approval, including the extension of societal privileges, would be given to same-sex relationships if any amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act were to include the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation' as a grounds of discrimination;

"Therefore, your petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Human Rights Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same-sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Human Rights Code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation.'"

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I also have a petition, which comes from the riding of Quinte, from the Belleville Community Church, and it's signed by Reverend Bill Clark, the pastor, and by many of his constituents. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in our opinion a majority of Ontarians believe that the privileges which society accords to married heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships; and

"Whereas for our government to use our tax money to furnish contributions for the propagation of practices which we sincerely believe to be morally wrong would be a serious violation of our freedom of conscience; and

"Whereas redefining 'marital status' and/or 'spouse' by extending it to include gay and lesbian couples would give homosexual couples the same status as married couples, including the legal right to adopt children; and

"Whereas the term 'sexual orientation' is vague and undefined, leaving the door open to the demands for equal treatment by persons with deviant sexual orientation other than the practice of homosexuality;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We request that the Legislature not pass into law any act to amend the Human Rights Code with respect to sexual orientation or any similar legislation that would change the present marital status for couples in Ontario."

1520

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by hundreds of residents of my constituency. It reads:

"Whereas the majority of Ontario's citizens believe that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual married couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships; and

"Whereas to redefine the fundamental institutions of marriage and family, allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, would cause an enormous negative impact in our society over the long term;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario refrain from changing provincial laws to extend spousal and family benefits to same-sex couples."

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products.

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces, rather than act on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"That the government of Ontario continue to work with and pressure the government of Canada to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

I have signed my name to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and citizens of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislative Assembly to the following:

"Whereas the majority of Canadians believe that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships; and

"Whereas the traditional family relationship which has been set up by God would be in jeopardy;

"Therefore, your petitioners request that Parliament not amend the Ontario Human Rights Code in any way which would indicate approval of same-sex relationships. God's laws must be respected."

That petition is signed by several dozens of my constituents and by me.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly with some 250 names on it. It says:

"Whereas in our opinion a majority of Ontarians believe that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships; and

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas Canada was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles which recognize the importance of marriage and family;

"Whereas the redefinition of 'marital status' will extend to same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage;

"Whereas the redefinition will further increase the likelihood that children will learn to imitate homosexual practices;

"Whereas there is evidence that there will be negative financial, societal and medical implications and effects on the community with any increase in homosexual practices, the redefinition of 'spouse' and 'family status' and policies concerning adoption of children by homosexuals;

"We request that the House refrain from passing any legislation that would alter or redefine marital status."

It's signed by a number of residents in Elgin county.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): "Whereas the protection of human rights is a fundamental principle of international law and is an overriding responsibility of all governments; and

"Whereas the NDP government of Ontario has undertaken a review of Ontario's statutes based on the principle that 'all Ontario laws and programs must treat people fairly regardless of the nature of their personal relationships or their family unit'; and

"Whereas a September 1992 ruling by a board of inquiry under the Ontario Human Rights Code in the Leshner case upheld the principle of equal rights for same-sex spouses citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

"Whereas Bill 45, recently introduced as a private member's bill, serves only to confirm the status quo without addressing discriminatory language in nearly 80 other statutes and will therefore require years of further litigation to secure equality rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

"Whereas any further denial of these human rights in Ontario is unconscionable;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to immediately introduce and enact legislation amending the definitions of 'spouse' and related terms wherever they occur in Ontario statutes so that they are inclusive of same-sex partners and their families."

I hereto affix my signature.

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I'm proud to present a petition in support of Bill 167.

"Whereas every day in our province lesbians and gays face legal discrimination such as not being able to see their partners in hospital, losing custody of children they have raised or paying into employment benefit plans and being barred from receiving the benefits they pay for; and

"Whereas every Ontarian deserves to be treated the same way by the law; and

"Whereas Bill 167, the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, would end state-sanctioned discrimination;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to give swift passage to Bill 167."

This petition is from 294 people from the Ottawa-Carleton area, of which I am one of the nine MPPs. I've signed my signature and I support this petition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the previous provincial Liberal government of David Peterson announced its intention in its budget of 1989 of requiring all school boards to provide junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the provincial NDP government is continuing the Liberal policy of requiring school boards in Ontario to phase in junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the government is downloading expensive programs like junior kindergarten on to local boards while not providing boards with the funding required to undertake these programs; and

"Whereas the Wellington County Board of Education estimates that the operating cost of junior kindergarten will be at least $4.5 million per year; and

"Whereas mandatory junior kindergarten programs will force boards to cut other important programs or raise taxes; and

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We demand that the government of Ontario cancel its policy of forcing junior kindergarten on to local school boards."

I support this petition and affix my signature to it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition that's signed by about 75 people of my riding asking me to vote against legislation to give homosexual people the same rights as married couples.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to the decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces rather than act on its own to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

I have signed this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a petition here addressed to the Parliament, to the House of Commons, and it takes the same bent as most of the other petitions that are presented here today in opposition to the granting of same-sex rights.

1530

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr79, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Your committee recommends that the following bill be not reported:

Bill Pr115, An Act respecting the County of Bruce.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Marchese from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 136, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act and to make related amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Justices of the Peace Act / Projet de loi 136, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires et apportant des modifications corrélatives à la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée et à la Loi sur les juges de paix.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 136 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DONATION OF FOOD ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LE DON D'ALIMENTS

On motion by Mr McGuinty, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 170, An Act respecting the Donation of Food / Projet de loi 170, Loi concernant le don d'aliments.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My bill will relieve people who donate food to our food banks from liability in the event that, by accident alone, that food makes a food bank user sick. The purpose of the bill is to protect the supply of existing donations to food banks and to encourage further donations.

CROWN FOREST SUSTAINABILITY ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA DURABILITÉ DES FORÊTS DE LA COURONNE

On motion by Mr Hampton, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 171, An Act to revise the Crown Timber Act to provide for the sustainability of Crown Forests in Ontario / Projet de loi 171, Loi révisant la Loi sur le bois de la Couronne en vue de prévoir la durabilité des forêts de la Couronne en Ontario.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr Speaker, in addition to my comments, I'd ask for unanimous consent that the two opposition critics be permitted perhaps two minutes simply to respond to the comments.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The request is certainly in order, though it is an unusual procedure. Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Hampton: I'm introducing the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, An Act to revise the Crown Timber Act to provide for the sustainability of Crown Forests in Ontario. The purposes of this act are to provide for the sustainability of crown forests and, in accordance with that objective, to manage crown forests to meet social, economic and environmental needs of present and future generations.

I would like to thank all of the people in the Ministry of Natural Resources who worked very hard on this act. Some of them have worked night and day over the last six months: Ken Cleary; David Balsillie, the assistant deputy minister; Clarke Kirkland, who came all the way from Hearst; and Stuart Davidson, legal counsel, who drafted much of the language. I'd like to thank them for all of their hard work.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): We on this side have been waiting for this act for quite a number of months, as have the people in the forest industry and people involved in many of the community groups, many of the groups concerned with our natural resources, and people in the tourist industry all through the province.

During the last, oh, five to six months there's been increasing concern that we don't know what's going on in silviculture this year; we don't know what's going on in tending. All there have been are question marks around what this government's doing.

I take you back, Madam Speaker, to recognize the huge environmental deficit left by the legacy of the Rae government. We've talked repeatedly on this side about a 30% decrease in the planting of trees in Ontario's forests. We've talked about the fact that only 50% of the tending is done here in Ontario that was done a mere four years ago. We've talked about the fact that area charges have been doubled. We've talked about the fact that stumpage fees have been increased radically already in this province.

We have an industry that is looking for answers. I understand that this should be some of the answers we're looking for, and I think we on this side are in favour of some or perhaps a lot of the particular segments of this bill. But I would tell you that we are very concerned that it looks an awful lot like a tax grab. We are very concerned that the money will not actually be put into the forests. We are very concerned that the people of northern Ontario will not have the full opportunity to discuss it, as people in southern Ontario should also have.

We believe this bill has to go out to committee. We see this bill, at least in the initial stages -- and of course I have had no opportunity to review it at this point -- as something that could be positive but on the other hand is so vague and so motherhood in its announcement that we don't really know what it means.

We look forward to going through this in a very clear and open process to discuss the numbers that the minister throws around, to discuss the stumpage fees that the minister throws around, to talk about the planting, the tending and the reclamation of Ontario's forests.

At this point we will suspend judgement on the minister's initiative but ask him if he could move to reassure people in the industry today what their future might be in the present circumstance rather than waiting for this minister and this government to give us the answers that will come out of this bill.

1540

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): We on this side of the House as well agree that it's about time we had some changes to the Crown Timber Act. I think we've been waiting for a number of years for that.

We are encouraged by what was mentioned in the budget and again in this act, and that's to set up a forest renewal trust fund to ensure there will be money in future for reforestation on crown lands. That's a huge improvement and it's long overdue. I'd like to thank the ministry staff for working so hard to implement that.

As was mentioned by my colleague in the official opposition, the overall act sounds very good and is full of motherhood statements. It will be important to take a look at the details. I just received the act right now, so to get a comprehensive response I'm looking forward to the process being open and a lot of time to discuss it.

It's needed for the crown forests to be sustainable, and you've mentioned that forest communities will need to sustain forestry jobs. I'd be interested to know how many cubic feet you're projecting to come off crown land and how many cubic feet it takes in the whole industry.

We seem to be focusing on this act with the crown land and that's great, that's an improvement, but there's more to our forestry industry in Ontario than what just comes off crown lands. You talk about hardwoods, you talk about veneers and maple and oak, and the majority of that, for international markets, comes off private lands. What's happened in the last year under this government is that it's actually taking away the management plans to make private forests sustainable in the long run. I think that needs to be looked at in conjunction with this. Also, the keep-it-wild zones have to be looked at in terms of traditional uses on these lands.

This is a very comprehensive act. It brings in a number of interest groups to manage the whole forest, not just the timber component of it. It's a welcome improvement, but I'm interested in looking at the details of how the dispute mechanisms will be sorted out.

I think whether this is successful for Ontario, the real results of this will be shown in generations down the line and in years to come, so therefore I think it's important that we take our time and set up the process so it reflects long-term planning that's good for the province, not just for today but for generations to come.

I thank the minister for bringing it out and I look forward to working with him to make it work.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DROITS À L'ÉGALITÉ

Mrs Boyd moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 167, An Act to amend Ontario Statutes to provide for the equal treatment of persons in spousal relationships / Projet de loi 167, Loi modifiant des lois de l'Ontario afin de prévoir le traitement égal des personnes vivant dans une union entre conjoints.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I'm very pleased to rise today to speak in support of my motion that this House give second reading to the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, Bill 167. This act builds on Ontario's best traditions, including our province's leadership in the development of human rights legislation and our support for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as set out in the Constitution Act of 1982.

Ontario legislation on human rights goes back to at least 1932, when amendments were made to the Insurance Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or religion. This initiative was followed by legislation in the 1940s prohibiting notices and signs which indicated an intention to discriminate. In the 1950s, we saw legislation dealing with discrimination in employment and in accommodation.

In 1962, in this province, we proclaimed our first Human Rights Code, which collected and added to the earlier human rights initiatives. Over the intervening 32 years, and most particularly in a fundamental revision in 1981, the Ontario Human Rights Code has been regularly strengthened as this House recognized the need to articulate clear public policy against discrimination. Over all those years, grounds added to the code's protection included sex, marital status, handicap, family status and finally, in 1986, sexual orientation.

More recently, we have seen important systemic legislation in relation to pay and employment equity. Bill 167 builds on this strong tradition of human rights legislation in the province of Ontario.

Bill 167 also responds to the developing case law under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ontario's highest court held in the 1992 Haig case that discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case involved the Canadian armed forces policy of denying gays and lesbians opportunities for promotion, training and other forms of career advancement. The Canadian Human Rights Act did not then, and does not in and of itself, prohibit that kind of discrimination.

But the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the equality guarantees in section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The court also held that governments have a constitutional duty to provide human rights protection to gays and lesbians. In the words of Mr Justice Krever, prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination is part of "the enlightened evolution of human rights social and legislative policy in Canada."

The Haig case confirms that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to equal treatment. Laws which discriminate against them will be struck down unless the government can demonstrate to the court with strong and compelling evidence that the discrimination is a reasonable limit on the right to equality. The onus is on those who would deny equal treatment of same-sex spouses to justify their position.

Measured against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is clear that many of our provincial laws currently fall short of the test of equality under the charter. I am satisfied, as Attorney General, that it is contrary to the laws of our land not to provide equality between same- and opposite-sex unmarried couples. Given this, it is extremely difficult to respond to the charter challenges being brought to our legislation daily in our courts. I do not believe there is an argument that can credibly be made to justify this discrimination.

Understandably, the courts are concerned that concessions in individual cases transfer too much responsibility from governments to the courts. Leaving these issues to be decided by the courts also carries some significant risks and costs. Constitutional litigation is slow and it is costly for both governments and for private parties. As these cases slowly work their way through the courts, the constitutional validity of Ontario's laws will remain uncertain. In addition, there is a real risk that the courts may strike down whole Ontario statutes or parts of those statutes which fail to meet constitutional standards, thus creating public confusion and administrative uncertainty because of the legal void that will exist as laws are being redrafted.

The courts have made it very clear that they will not rewrite legislation in order to make it consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to the Supreme Court of Canada in the Schachter case, creating legislation is the responsibility of the Legislature and the Parliament, not the responsibility of the courts.

Our government has therefore chosen to put forward a comprehensive legislative response to the charter issues we are facing with respect to same-sex couples. It is our duty as legislators and my obligation as Attorney General to bring our laws into accordance with this fundamental articulation of the core Canadian values of diversity and tolerance.

Previous governments in Ontario have also recognized that this is a responsible approach to constitutional issues. In 1986, this House approved an omnibus bill which amended a large number of Ontario statutes to bring them into conformity with the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The 1986 bill made a number of amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code, including the amendment which added sexual orientation to the grounds of discrimination prohibited under the code. Bill 167 builds on this 1986 amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code. It ends discrimination against same-sex couples in Ontario laws, reflects our commitment to the extension of fundamental human rights and reinforces our support for all Ontario families.

1550

There are a number of details in the bill and a number of different things that it does. I think it's important and certainly evident from the kinds of commentary that we've all heard on this bill that we go through some of those issues in some detail, and I intend to do that this afternoon.

In doing that, I would say that it is one of the more important issues that faces us today, and while we know that there may be deep divisions of opinion in this House, it is extremely important for us as legislators to give our serious, thoughtful and respectful attention to this matter.

Whenever we discuss issues that are of fundamental importance to human rights, we are talking about the lives of individuals, individual citizens, women and men, who come before us asking only that they no longer be subjected to discrimination. Whether or not we agree with the remedy to this particular form of discrimination, it is extremely important that we bend our attention to it in a serious way. I am delighted that we are at the point where we are discussing this in this place.

The bill does a number of things. First, it amends the Ontario Human Rights Code to prohibit discrimination against same-sex couples as a matter of fundamental human rights in this province. This means that the discriminatory treatment of same-sex spouses will be prohibited in all areas which are covered by the Ontario Human Rights Code, including employment, contracts, goods, services and accommodation. Bill 167 also amends the code to prohibit harassment of same-sex spouses in the employment context.

These changes to the code will not, as some might argue, promote group rights over individual rights. Anti-discrimination laws recognize that individuals often suffer disadvantages because those individuals are identified with a group which is subject to prejudice and stereotyping. Historically, this has certainly been true for women and for racial, religious and disabled persons. It is also true in the case of gays and lesbians, people who may live in conjugal relationships with a person of the same sex. The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is not to promote the group interest per se, but to ensure that individuals who are members of disadvantaged groups are treated fairly.

Second, Bill 167 specifically changes other Ontario laws to make them consistent with this basic human rights principle. Same-sex spouses will be given equal rights to employment benefits, for example, as well as equal access to all government services. In addition, this bill ensures that same-sex spouses have all the same obligations as other unmarried spouses, including obligations to support one another financially when that relationship comes to an end.

Bill 45, which was introduced by the honourable member for St George-St David, is pending before this House. That bill has already received support in principle from the House. Bill 167 does what Bill 45 purported to do, but it does so clearly, comprehensively and without any legal uncertainty. Unlike Bill 45, Bill 167 changes the definition of "spouse" as well as the definition of "marital status" in the code, avoiding any legal uncertainty about its purpose or its effect.

Further, Bill 167 goes beyond Bill 45 in ensuring that same-sex spouses receive equal treatment under all Ontario laws, not just those which provide rights to employment benefit services and other matters which are covered by the Ontario Human Rights Code. Bill 167 also goes beyond Bill 45 in imposing responsibilities, such as family support obligations, on same-sex spouses.

I think it is important at this point to address four important things which this bill does not do. First, it does not redefine or affect the institution of marriage. Second, it does not create a so-called right to adopt children. Third, it does not impose significant costs. Fourth, it does not take away rights from anyone else.

I think it's important for us to expand on these points because there has been a great deal written and said that might lead people in the general public, and even some people in this House, to believe otherwise.

First, as far as marriage is concerned, the bill continues to protect marriage as a separate category in Ontario law, with special rights and responsibilities which are automatically attached to it. Marriage laws are the clear responsibility of the federal government. Only if the federal government were to change its own policies or if the courts were to declare the federal marriage laws invalid would this special status change.

The fear that has come about that the institution of marriage is in danger is not so. I think it is important for us to be very clear about this because at every point where provincial or federal laws have been changed concerning the institution of marriage, this has been the very real fear that has been expressed by citizens of our province and indeed across Canada.

If you think of the changes that occurred in the -- gee, I'm going to make a mistake about this -- it's the Family Law Reform Act of 1975 or 1976, I'm not quite sure which, the same kinds of concerns were expressed around extending family benefits to common-law spouses and their children. There was a great foofaraw and a great outcry that somehow by recognizing that it is an obligation to support people to whom you have made a commitment over time, with whom you may have had and raised a child, suddenly we were going to denigrate the institution of marriage by requiring the same kind of social obligations and according the same kind of rights to those individuals who choose to live together in a committed relationship without benefit of marriage.

Again, when the Divorce Act was changed federally in 1968, 1969, and again in 1985, the same kinds of concerns were raised, and they are serious concerns. I think we know, all of us, that the institution of marriage has a very, very strong emotional attachment within this province and indeed within our whole western tradition. It would not be the wish of this government in any way, through this act, to want to alter that special status. That fear is a fear that we respect and we understand, but it is a fear which we do not believe is a real fear when attached to this particular bill.

The second issue is the issue of adoption. Again, there has been much misinformation around this issue, and many people have misconceptions about what the law would actually accomplish.

As far as adoption is concerned, this bill simply lets two people who are in a committed conjugal relationship, either of whom can now apply to adopt as an individual, make this same application as a couple. It was the 1986 Ontario Human Rights Code amendment which prohibited discrimination against single gay and lesbian people in relation to the right to apply to adopt. All this bill does is to allow two individuals who are in a committed relationship to do what one of these individuals now already can do.

Most importantly of all, this bill will permit an application to adopt. No one in Ontario now has, nor will anyone get as a result of this act, a right to adopt a child. This bill will follow the practice of other North American jurisdictions in providing access to adoption services for same-sex couples only.

1600

But the test to determine the appropriateness of an adoption remains completely unaffected by this bill. Our law provides that the adoption of children must always be based on the best interests of the child involved. That test, the best interests of the child, has recently been reaffirmed and strengthened by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Young v Young. Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dubé described the importance of the test as follows, and I quote her judgement because it is very important as a protection for the best interests of the child. She says:

"The best interests test is universally recognized as the foundation of modern family law around the world and is legislatively entrenched in both common law and civil jurisdictions in the United States, Australia and Europe. Moreover, the need to make the best interests of the child the primary consideration in all actions concerning children, including legal proceedings, is specifically recognized in international human rights documents such as the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child.... In my view, this amply demonstrates both the enduring value of the best interests test as a legal norm capable of meaningful application and the broad recognition of the interests of children in the field of human rights."

Bill 167 does not change this test nor the rigorous process we have in place in this province to ensure that the best interests of the child are the only consideration in adoption applications. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that we cannot trust adoption agencies and the courts to continue to carry out their role in the adoption process and to ensure that the best interests rule is the test always applied in cases of adoption application.

A report by the national adoption study which was carried out at the University of Guelph and released in May 1993 recommended that there be an extension of opportunities to adopt by single and unmarried applicants regardless of their sexual orientation whenever the best interests of the child are met.

That report concluded that, "There is no evidence to demonstrate that the best interests of the child are better served in any particular family constellation."

It's important for me to be very explicit around Bill 167, because no law of Ontario guarantees that any couple will necessarily be permitted to adopt any child. All the law does is to permit people to apply to adopt. It is always up to the courts to decide whether a particular home is the right home for a particular child, and Bill 167 will not change that principle in the slightest way. What it will do is to ensure that that right to application is there for couples who are in a same-sex committed relationship and that their consideration will be the same under the test of the best interests of the child.

I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that the current practice, the practice that has been in place in this province for the last eight years, which enables people to adopt as single people without regard in the case of same-sex individual couples whether or not there is a partner in the home on a regular basis who is responsible for that child, may not be as much in the best interests of the child as the situation that we are proposing, where the adoption agencies and the courts would have an opportunity to look at the real circumstances in which that child will live.

Our government is very, very sensitive to the concerns that have been expressed on this particular aspect of the bill. We take these concerns very seriously and are prepared to listen to how our colleagues in this House would suggest that we deal with what they perceive to be a conflict between the best interests of children and the human rights guarantees under the charter of same-sex couples.

We hope that in the course of the debate we will learn in a way that -- and frankly at the moment we do not understand what members perceive to be so problematic in the right of everyone to apply for adoption, given that all single people, regardless of sexual orientation, now have that right under the Human Rights Code amendments that were passed in 1986.

I would say that those amendments were passed with support from every party in this House, that it was regarded at that time as a non-partisan issue, an issue which was an issue of human rights and an issue on which people must vote according to their conscience. As you know, Madam Speaker, that is the stance that we have taken on this particular issue.

Some of the members seem to believe that Bill 167 takes the matter of adoption application further than Bill 45, which was introduced by the Liberal member for St George-St David and is still before this House. Like Bill 45, Bill 167 does not amend the Child and Family Services Act which governs adoptions in Ontario. Instead it amends the Ontario Human Rights Code and relies on the primacy of the code's anti-discrimination provisions to supersede more restrictive approaches taken in other Ontario statutes.

I have every reason to assume that Bill 45 was introduced in good faith and supported in good faith by members in this House. Given that the effect of Bill 45 would have been the same, the issue of adoption application rights I find difficult to see as the problem for supporting this particular bill. I would hope that those who supported Bill 45 would now see that this is not an issue on which to reject support for Bill 167.

There's another issue, of course, that has been raised with respect to Bill 167 and that is the issue of whether or not extending benefits, particularly employment benefits, to same-sex couples would be particularly costly at this time.

There is genuine and very serious concern that if we impose additional costs on employers at this point in time, given the very difficult circumstances we have seen in our economy over the last few years, that would not be a wise thing for us to do. Indeed, many people have argued that it would be wise for us as a government to delay this move at this point in time because it might add to the cost of employment and therefore might impede the progress we seem to be making out of the recession.

It's important for us to recognize that Bill 167 does not impose any significant costs on either the government or the private sector. In most cases, the changes carry no costs of any kind, and as the largest employer in this province, we know that, because in December 1990 this government extended these benefits to our own employees and we now have the experience of a number of years to tell us that in fact it is not a costly matter to extend these rights.

As a matter of fact, as an employer, it is of great benefit to us to know that our employees feel secure in the assurance that their loved ones will be cared for in security and that their contributions to those plans will have the same return as anyone else's. I can tell you that for us, as an employer, the assurance that our employees do not need to worry about the members of their families and how they will fare should an illness occur, should a death occur in the family, should there be an injury at work, is very important to us.

We have made a difficult decision, and it is a difficult decision for us because we are an impatient bunch and would like to see all of these rights available immediately. But we made the decision to delay the proclamation of the required changes to pension legislation until the federal government or the courts alter the current laws that now are discriminatory in terms of the pension plans in our country. We are doing so in order to ensure that costs are not imposed upon employers as a result of those discriminatory federal laws. As soon as those laws are changed or struck down by the courts, these sections of Bill 167 will automatically come into play, and at that point employers will be required to extend survivor pensions to same-sex spouses and will be able to do so at a minimal cost because their pension plans will receive the same tax treatment as those which are provided now for opposite-sex couples.

1610

We have experience with the cost of offside pensions. As was mentioned in one of the petitions this afternoon, we ourselves were ordered by the courts to deliver an offside pension plan to our employees in the Ontario government as a result of one of the cases that came forward under the Human Rights Code. We know that is an expensive proposition, because the tax breaks within the pension plans are part of what makes it possible for employers to support those plans at a cost that is not prohibitive.

We have done that, and we know that from the point of view of ensuring that there is no discrimination against our employees, it is the right thing to do. But we also are aware of the added cost to us of taking that stance and we are concerned that we not impose that same kind of cost upon other employers in the province. We are confident that our colleagues at the federal level will either be ordered to change their laws or in fact will change those laws voluntarily, seeing the economic benefit of doing so, in the near future. So we are making provision within this law that as soon as that occurs, this will become one of the mandatory provisions under this act.

The fourth issue we must look at is that this bill does not take away any of the rights or benefits now enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. No one will lose anything as a result of this bill. This is not a situation where we can only extend rights to some by taking rights away from others, and as a result only a very few people will be in any way affected directly by these changes. In particular, the bill does not, as some have argued, pose any threat to traditional families. On the contrary, the bill is consistent with this government's respect for family relationships and its continuing recognition of the importance of these relationships, both to individuals and to our communities. By making our definition of family more inclusive and, frankly, more reflective of the reality in this province, we are acknowledging what we all know, that families can and do take many forms.

There have been enormous changes in the family structures and the composition of families in Ontario over the last 20 years. Families may now be made up of single parents and their children, married couples with or without children, or same- or opposite-sex couples who live together in committed relationships outside of marriage, with or without children. Many families today are blended families in which one or more of the children in the family are from a previous relationship. Whatever their form, families deserve our protection and our support. Bill 167 respects the rights of individuals to make their own choices about their personal relationships and ensures continuing public support for Ontario's families in all their diverse forms.

In the past few days the Ontario women's directorate, which I have the privilege to lead as the minister responsible for women's issues, has undertaken a nationwide conference to look at the relationships between work and family responsibility. This was a move that was taken on by us in 1991 as a result of the growing pressures on families because of the changes in our workforce and the enormous impact that has had on our feelings of safety and security within our communities and within our families, the kinds of stresses that our families have been having to respond to as the demographics of our situation change rapidly.

We need to remember that there has seldom been a period in our history where there has been so many profound social and economic changes over as short a time. We took the leadership nationally among the women's issues ministers across the country because we knew that in Ontario there had already been a great deal of work done on this issue.

The delegates, who came from all over this country and indeed some visitors from other parts of the world, brought their own experience of families together and talked about the need for us to find ways that governments can better support the family in these rapidly changing times. But it became very clear, even from the 150 people at that conference, that there is an enormous difference in the numbers and the kinds of families we see and that there is a real hunger for people to see in the public policy of governments more explicit support for the family in all its forms.

The results of that conference underlined, certainly for me -- when you get a number of people, and they represented advocacy groups, public policy makers, social planners, government officials and members of the general public who were interested in the issue, all these people were saying we cannot make assumptions about who families are and what they need according to what may have been true in the past.

The point was made, however, by Professor Susan McDaniel -- and I am getting to my point -- that our thoughts about family often bear little relationship to reality. She pointed out something that I had never noticed before: that the most popular and most well-known family in Canada to the rest of the world is a family made up of Matthew and Marilla Cuthbert, older brother and sister, never married, and their adopted child, Anne Shirley. That is the family that is most commonly known across the world as the example of the Canadian family. It's an interesting thing. I'd never thought of it before, and I sat there kind of surprised, but Anne of Green Gables is seen across the world as the family, in terms of people being prepared to create a family together to support children and to support one another.

She did not go on with the analogy, but I will, because when Matthew dies, Marilla's friend Rachel comes to live with the family and then they adopt twins, whose names I think I've forgotten -- Danny and somebody, but anyway -- and that family then continues to be a non-traditional family representing all the best family values that we can have.

I tell that story, as Susan McDaniel did, to say that while we all -- and I think this is true of everyone in this place -- support the function of family and want to see that function strengthened in our province and in our communities and that we have obligations in terms of public policy to see that we are supporting families in all their chosen forms, that as we look at these issues we try very hard to recognize that people do choose different forms of families and still deserve the same kind of support from us all.

1620

Given what I've said about that family and how extended it is, I'd like to comment very briefly on some of the recent suggestions that came forward from the federal Minister of Justice around an alternative approach to this whole issue of how to meet our constitutional requirements and look at this matter in a different way. The federal minister suggested, as an alternative approach to this matter, that we really look at all sorts of forms of relationships and look at them in the sense of emotional and economic dependence rather than familial base.

Madam Speaker, I want you to know that Ontario has given careful consideration to such an approach. I really want this House to understand that we are very prepared to work with the federal government and others in considering its implications, because I think it strikes a chord with a lot of people in this country, whose experience may be of that kind of extended family or may not, but who understand that there are different ways in which people relate and that those relationships are important.

Essentially, the approach suggested by the federal Minister of Justice moves away from a consideration of whether a relationship is conjugal -- right now, most of our laws depend on definitions that talk about conjugal relationships in the sense of a dependency that is based on that particular close, chosen tie between two people -- but focuses instead on emotional or economic dependency. The federal minister believes that would be a better way for society to look at the function of family, rather than the form of a relationship, in order to determine what the rights and what the supports of families ought to be.

We took a long time as a government to consider various options that might achieve the human rights objective that we had but might do that in many different ways, and we looked at the possibility of expanding this definition to non-conjugal relationships.

Obviously, such an approach raises new issues. Those are sociological issues as well as economic issues. Let me just outline some of them, some of the questions we would need to answer.

The definition of such a family would remain very much an issue. Definitions are important, as we all know, because unless we have the definition, a section of any act that depends on that definition can always be challengeable and we end up in endless litigation. That's our problem now with this whole situation. So the definition remains very much an issue.

Then there are many questions which we would have to have answered in considering this approach. I'm going to just suggest some of them, and it will evoke, I think, for everybody in this House the complexity of this matter and how much consideration it will require.

Should the test of whether or not a family meets the definition require that the particular relationship be of primary importance to those involved? Generally, a conjugal relationship, as we define it in law, makes the underlying assumption that that's the primary relationship in people's lives and that other relationships follow from that. So if we were going to really redefine in that sense, we would need to answer that question.

Should there be a need for economic interdependence where benefits such as health benefits are concerned? Again, most of our benefits, our laws, now assume, whether that's reality or not -- and in many cases, with two partners working at full-time employment, it may not be the case -- that this means an economic interdependence. Would that be the case in this kind of situation? Would there be economic dependence of one person on another? In other words, if one person is dependent, would that be the definitional aspect? That remains a question.

Should the test be emotional dependence? We all know that one of the things we evoke as we talk about family and deal with the issue of why we choose to live in certain relationships is the emotional satisfaction and support we get from those relationships. Would it be sufficient in these relationships, to meet a test of definition, that there be an emotional dependence? That, of course, raises another issue: How would we measure the level of dependence? What would the test and the measurement be? Should the individuals in such a relationship be required to be living together or could close relationships and attachments transcend municipal or even provincial boundaries? I can think of a number of fictional situations where that is true and one would wonder if that would meet that definition.

How many people would be affected? We have no idea, because the demographics have not been done in the same way. Our census data may tell us who lives in different dwellings at a particular moment in time, but very often do not define whether or not there's an attachment between people that can genuinely cause them to be described as a family.

Can employers or, probably even more important, insurers accurately predict the cost consequences of that kind of expansion of a definition? Since actuarial calculations are now made on very different assumptions, I would assume a recalculation of the impact of such a move would be a very important part of what would go on in an examination of this idea.

One of the things that surprised me in the discussion that has arisen since we announced our intention to move forward with what is basically a very simple and straightforward remedy to a constitutional problem that we face, and that we face every day in costly litigation, was the enthusiasm with which people greeted this notion of redefining the family, quite unlike the kind of opposition that suggests, it's not unfair to say, that it's anathema to even suggest that we might redefine the family. We are obviously prepared to work at trying to answer some of these questions, but this was not the objective that we were trying to achieve.

Bill 167 represents our view that at a minimum at this point in time we need to move to bring Ontario statutes into line with the charter, building on already accepted tests and definitions. Bill 167 would resolve litigation that is now before the courts and respond to the immediate human needs of many people in this province. That was the intention of our act.

However, I would like to be very clear on two points. First, the approach the federal minister is proposing would clearly include all of those who would be included under Bill 167. The only question is whether it would include others as well, other forms of relationships as well, and on what basis.

Second, Ontario would be very much prepared to consider an amendment to Bill 167 along the lines that are being proposed by the federal government and others within this House who have come to me and to other ministers saying: "Why are we relying on a conjugal relationship? Perhaps we ought to be broadening this to really reflect the reality of all families and not just narrowing this to the issue of rights of same-sex couples." We would be willing to do that as long as we can answer some of the questions which are now outstanding in a timely fashion. That is the issue for us. If there is a willingness in this House to work on such an expansion, then we certainly would be prepared to work with our colleagues to do that.

I am confident that the legislation we are proposing is needed and is needed now. I am also confident that this legislation builds on the solid basis of tolerance and respect which has characterized this province. Bill 167 represents an essential part of our evolving human rights framework. At the same time, by strengthening the position of couples in this province and ensuring basic benefits to them, we are acting to strengthen our economy. People in secure and supportive relationships are better able to contribute to the economic growth and health of the province.

1630

Our inclusive policies and framework of tolerance will ensure that all citizens feel supported in their efforts to contribute to Ontario's economy.

By imposing obligations on same-sex couples, we are also ensuring a level of security for many people who are now dependent in relationships where they cannot rely on the assistance of the law, should that relationship disappear. That is an important issue because, as we are in very uncertain times, in times when many families have seen their means greatly eroded as a result of the recession, we find many families experiencing the kind of anxiety and the kind of stress that comes from uncertainty about the future, and same-sex couples are no different from any other form of family in that. So the certainty which underlies the relationships which we now recognize in our communities as protected would also belong to those relationships and would add to the stability and the strength of our community.

I think, as we consider these issues, it will be important for us to listen carefully to one another, to try to seek a resolution to the very real constitutional problems that we face and to deal with the emotion that surrounds this issue in a way that is respectful of the dignity of individual people who are involved in this issue. It seems to me that we are a group of people who can achieve that within this place. It is a grave responsibility that we bear to try and create legislation which meets the changing needs of our society, the changing public policy demands of our society, which supports the values that we hold dear in our society and which strengthens us as individuals and as communities at a time when we need that strength more than ever before.

I am certainly satisfied, as the Attorney General, that it is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the supreme law of our land, not to end discrimination against same-sex couples. Cases going through our courts are steadily affirming this. It seems to me that as people of principle, as people with strong values, values which include the value of each individual in our society under the charter and all those groups that are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we will decide that we will vote in favour of this bill and that we will create a society which is reflective of the core human rights that we hold dear as citizens of Ontario and citizens of Canada. I urge the members here to reflect on those matters that we've raised, to listen carefully to one another and indeed to join me in supporting Bill 167.

Interruption.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I would like to advise the members in the gallery that you are to refrain from applauding or any other type of demonstration.

Questions or comments? There being none, further debate?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We are being asked today, as a part of the process of second reading approval, whether we as members of this Legislature support Bill 167 in principle. I will be voting against it because I do not support it in principle and I would like to state why.

This bill will make fundamental changes to the definition of "a family unit." It will change the definition of "spouse," which will trigger changes in some 55 different statutes, and it will extend the right to jointly adopt children to same-sex spouses. These changes represent radical departures for Ontario. They are changes which go beyond what I believe the people of Ontario are prepared to accept, and they go beyond what I personally am prepared to accept.

For over a year now, I have stated my concerns about any redefinition of "family," including the joint right of adoption. I also indicated that I was prepared to support the extension of health, sick leave and pension benefits to same-sex couples. These are two very different sets of issues. The extension of health, sick leave and pension benefits was provided for in the private member's bill that was introduced by the member for St George-St David, which would also have amended the Human Rights Code to prevent harassment in housing and in the workplace. I said I would vote for that bill, and I did.

By contrast, the bill we are being asked to support today is based on different principles and it would have far wider applications and implications. In fact, my colleague the member for St George-St David was personally in favour of a far wider set of changes, including the redefinition of "spouse." But that change and all of its ramifications in the definition of "family" and "spouse" and "adoption rights" went beyond what I could support, and that is why it was not included in the private member's Bill 45.

There are those in the government, including I believe the minister today, who say that Bill 167 only does what Bill 45 would have done. If that is the case, why are we now considering Bill 167? If that is the case, why did so many supporters of Bill 167 say, for the past year, that Bill 45 did not go far enough? Why are many of those same people saying Bill 167 is the most sweeping and comprehensive legislation ever to be presented on this topic?

The government knows it is different; supporters of Bill 167 know it is different; and I know it is different. The differences were important enough to prompt the government to bring in this far wider bill. They were important enough to cause many to lobby for this far wider bill, and they are important enough to cause me to oppose this far wider bill.

It is not sufficient to say that if we pass this bill in principle, it will be followed up by committee hearings and by possible amendments. Passing this bill in principle represents approval in principle. Committee hearings about a bill that has already been approved in principle are no substitute for the kind of thoughtful process that the minister has talked about today and that should have been employed before this legislation was presented.

Sweeping legislation that could have very deep social and economic implications for this province has been presented in a way that has left the people of this province no opportunity to consider the ramifications in a coherent and comprehensive manner. This government clearly understood what the issues were, and it chose to present this very broad legislation. We are now called upon to debate and to vote on this legislation in what has become an atmosphere of heightened emotion, confrontation and polarization.

1640

Today, even as we begin this debate, we hear reports of possible proposals by the government to salvage what they can by offering draft amendments to a bill that was introduced only a few days ago. Any possible amendments that would be offered on second reading would have no standing and cannot be the subject of this second reading vote in the Legislature. The second reading vote is a vote on the principles in Bill 167, which fundamentally change the definition of the family in a way that neither I nor the people of Ontario are prepared to accept.

The response that we're seeing to this bill confirms the concerns I expressed over a year ago about the reaction such dramatic legal changes in the definition of family and the right to adoption would meet in this province. The debate has been acrimonious, it has been heated and it has indeed been polarizing.

I have been disappointed to see very deliberate efforts made by some to confuse and to inflame what is already a sensitive and emotional issue. This is especially disappointing because this issue involves the consideration of fundamental principles, and that should be done in a clear and logical manner.

It is also inevitably an issue which calls forth deeply held convictions from very different perspectives. The fact that this is a free vote underscores this issue as one that is based on individual conscience and one on which all members must sort through fundamental questions, and this brings me back to the points I raised at the beginning of my remarks.

I cannot support legislation which so dramatically redefines the family unit. I cannot support the redefinition of "spouse," which triggers changes in 55 different statutes. I cannot support the right to jointly adopt.

It is often a fine line between a policy that is fair and makes sense and one that simply goes too far, and this bill crosses that line. I believe this legislation fails the test of good public policy. It is too broad and sweeping in its implications and it lacks public consent. In summary, it goes beyond what I can in conscience support, and that is why I will be voting against approval in principle on Bill 167.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions or comments?

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I would like to respond in questions and comments that I think a very fundamental question is, do you think that gay and lesbian people are responsible people who are willing to accept the responsibilities? I think there needs to be leadership taken in stopping discrimination.

Bill 45, which was introduced by the member for St George-St David, was reflective in supporting and in trying to stop discrimination happening. I think that is the goal of this legislation and I think you need to take leadership in terms of educating and stopping discrimination on this human rights issue. This is a very fundamental issue where we are taking responsibility.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I want obviously, in the very brief time that I have, to respond to one point that the Leader of the Opposition made and say, first of all, that I think it's useful -- I listened very carefully to what she had to say and I think it's useful that we have very clearly on the record her views on this matter, as indeed it's going to be useful to hear from other members. I think it's appropriate that we hear finally a fairly clear position from the Leader of the Opposition.

I do want to make one point, because I know that one of the points that the Leader of the Opposition made was to explain why she supported Bill 45 and why she does not support this particular bill. One of the points she made was with respect to adoption.

Whether there's been a question of confusion or simply different interpretations, I think it's also appropriate to put on the record that it is the view of many of us that, in reading what Bill 45 would have done, it would have, because it clearly amends the Human Rights Code definition, including the Human Rights Code definition of "marital status," also affected adoption proceedings because adoption proceedings, as I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition is fully aware, are covered by the Child and Family Services Act.

The Child and Family Services Act has been deemed by courts of this province to be subject to the Human Rights Code. It just behooves us all to take that also into account, but whether it has been by virtue of different interpretations or confusion or whatever, I think it's useful that we have finally the position of the Leader of the Opposition.

I would end by saying that I hope, as the Attorney General earlier indicated, that people go into these discussions being prepared to listen to each other and being prepared to see if there isn't also a way to come to some conclusions together.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I think most people in the Legislature will know where I stand on this issue and I hope that most will respect my position on the issue, as I respect others and their positions. I think that with some dialogue and with some discussion we can perhaps understand each other a little bit more.

My concern here is that just a few short months ago the Leader of the Opposition stood on one side of the issue -- and I respected her for that opinion -- and now, later on, she's on the other side of the issue. How can you respect her when she keeps flip-flopping back and forth and back and forth? Maybe next week she will change her mind again and maybe the caucus will change its mind again. I'm not sure.

I think that on a very controversial and a very emotional issue like this, leaders like yourself, through you, Mr Speaker, should take a position --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): And not speak out of both sides of your mouth.

Mr Mammoliti: -- and not speak out of both sides of your mouth, as my colleague has just said. That, in my opinion, is the wrong thing to do and at the wrong time. Right now, we're going through a difficult time in this place. We are trying to debate a very emotional issue and for them to be playing politics with this issue is strictly out of order, Mr Speaker.

1650

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Further questions or comments?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I want, for the record, to make some remarks that I think should make the Leader of the Opposition a bit uncomfortable, which I hope she will feel. I'm a bit disappointed with her remarks, but I will read some of the things she has sent and written in a letter to Bob Rae and Marion Boyd on March 9, 1993.

One quotation from that letter says, "If you will agree to bring legislation forward immediately, I will do everything possible to facilitate passage."

Regarding court and tribunal decisions which recognize same-sex spousal rights, the same March 9, 1993, letter states, "I am calling on you to heed this direction and to take action now to recognize the rights of same-sex couples."

She goes on to say in the same letter, "If you do not act...please be assured that a future Liberal government will move more swiftly to take the action which I am requesting you take immediately."

A Lyn McLeod letter to the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario, dated March 24, 1993, says: "Let me be clear. We must end discrimination against lesbians and gays."

The same letter goes on to say, "It is my belief that human rights should not be up for negotiation and that Ontario legislation should be made consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Leading up to the St George-St David by-election, the Liberals issued a brochure which indicated that one of the things they would fight for was "full legal rights and benefits for same-sex couples," and the text went on to say, "Let's get Tim Murphy, Lyn McLeod and the Liberal team working for our community."

Alvin Curling, during second reading of Bill 45, June 24, 1993, was talking about the commitment by the Attorney General to bring forward legislation, "...we will look at it in that very intelligent way too to make sure that people are not discriminated in any way possible, because that is what we are here for."

The Deputy Speaker: The leader of the official opposition, you have two minutes to reply.

Mrs McLeod: This is certainly not an issue which I, for one, and I believe most members of this Legislature come to only in recent weeks. This is an issue I have thought about very deeply and very carefully, not in the last 10 days but, I can tell you, almost continuously for the course of more than a year. It is an issue on which I have been absolutely clear in expressing my position and as well my concerns at each point in the development of this issue.

I have supported legislation brought in by a member of my caucus in the absence of government action on this issue, and I voted for that legislation. That legislation reflected my clearly stated concerns about what I could support and what I could not support, and as I have indicated today, that legislation, on what we considered to be sound legal advice, drew that distinction between the extension of benefits of health and sick leave and pension benefits and the further step, which I could not support, of the redefinition of the family unit and the right to adopt.

I have also called in the past on this government to present to the public and to this Legislature the review of other statutes which they believed would need changing and what the social and economic implications of changes in those statutes would be.

I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that this government has failed to present that review and has certainly failed to in any way present either the changes in the statutes or the social and economic implications of those changes before this legislation was introduced and before the members of this House would have to stand and vote.

This debate will continue at the end of the day. Each member will take their positions, and I respect that.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I rise as the critic for the Attorney General to offer my remarks about this Bill 167.

At a time when 500,000 Ontarians don't have a job, at a time when over a million people are on social assistance, at a time when our country's future is in question, this government is giving priority to legislation which changes the definitions of "marital status" and "spouse" to include same-sex relationships.

We do not believe this issue should be a priority for the Ontario Legislature. We were the only party in the Legislature to unanimously oppose this legislation on first reading, and we will oppose it on second reading.

I believe it is irresponsible for a government to inflame controversy needlessly, and make no mistake, the way this issue has been handled and the way promises and commitments have been made by various politicians has inflamed the controversy.

Our caucus has been clear from the outset on this issue, and I would like to put the position on the legislative record today. My conscience is clear. My party has not made promises. My party has not made promises like other political leaders have made.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale.

Mr Harnick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you know, Mr Speaker, our party leader, Mike Harris, is a strong advocate of free votes.

Laughter.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask you please to give the same respect to the member for Willowdale as you did for the others.

Mr Harnick: We have had many free votes as a caucus since Mike Harris became leader. Never once has a person in our caucus been told how to vote on any issue. That may be of some amusement to my friends in the Liberal Party, but it is something that we do in this party with conviction. Every member of our caucus is free to vote as they see fit on this issue. We had a free vote on first reading. As it happened, we were the only party that unanimously voted in opposition to this legislation and we will be the only party to consistently vote in opposition on second reading.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Not unanimously. Where was Margaret?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): She was in PEI, you idiot.

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

Mr Perruzza: A point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: There is a point of order already. The member for Scarborough North.

Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, I gather he is trying to describe me. I want to understand what kind of description.

The Deputy Speaker: Please. Do you have a point of order, the member for Downsview?

Mr Perruzza: My point is this, Mr Speaker: The member keeps mentioning how the vote was unanimous. Margaret Marland and Allan McLean were not in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the members of this House to give the same respect to the member for Willowdale as you did for the two other members who addressed this House.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, I rise in this House on a point of privilege. This member, the member for Downsview, has referred to my being absent for a vote, which in the first place is something that, I say with respect, is not done in this place. But that having been done -- Mr Speaker, hear me out.

The Deputy Speaker: I heard you. This is not a point of privilege.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, would you like me to refer to the order under which I am standing in my place?

I have been referred to by the member for Downsview for my absence at the time of the vote on first reading of this bill. That bill was introduced without any announcement to this House by this government. I left that morning at 6:30 for Nova Scotia, if you want to know. Had I been in this House, I would have voted with the rest of my PC colleagues in opposition to this bill.

1700

Mr Curling: I would ask the member for York Mills to withdraw the remarks he made about me, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: I haven't heard, unfortunately, the remark that was made about you. If there was an ill remark, a remark which was not acceptable in this House, I would ask that member to withdraw.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw my remark since my colleague has explained where she was, because he was misleading the House, suggesting that she wasn't here. I will withdraw.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: In this Legislature this afternoon I've been named as a member who was not here when the vote was taken on first reading of this bill. I was in northern Ontario on government business, and if I had been here, I would have voted no also.

Mr Harnick: Given that we are unanimous as a caucus on this issue and we are firmly of the view that this should not be a priority issue, I have been charged with the task as our party's Attorney General critic with putting our caucus's opinions on the record.

I do not wish to get too immersed in legal technicalities during the course of the second reading debate --

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Get immersed in the truth.

Mr Harnick: -- but I would like to put some broad principles on the record and articulate why we oppose the legislation. In response to the member, Mr Chiarelli -- I don't know what his riding is -- he says he wants me to put the truth on the record, and that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm going to do it a little bit out of order so that Mr Chiarelli can feel comfortable about what I'm going to say.

We have heard the member from Thunder Bay, the leader of the Liberal Party, and we have heard the speech she made. As she made the speech I could hear with a thud the hearts of a lot of the people in the gallery hitting the pits of their stomachs because -- Mr Chiarelli wants the truth; well, I'm going to give it to him -- here's what the leader of the Liberal Party said and here's what her position was on March 9, 1993. This is a letter she wrote in her pen, with her signature on it, on her letterhead, addressed to the Honourable Bob Rae and the Honourable Marion Boyd. Nothing could be more clear. Here's what she said:

"I wrote to the former Attorney General, asking for action on the government's promised review of all provincial policies and laws that contain" -- and here's the interesting part, so I want Mr Chiarelli, who's a well-known Ottawa lawyer, to listen up, because we're going to talk about some legal technicalities -- "a definition of 'spouse'" -- and here are the neat words -- "with a view to possible reform."

Well, if one takes a look at the definition of "spouse" as it now exists, there is only one way it can be reformed. There is only one way that it can be reformed and that's the way the government has done it, and it's by imposing the words "of either sex." That's what the government has done.

Now, there can be no other position that the leader of the Liberal Party was taking on that day, on March 9, 1993, on the eve of a by-election in St George-St David. There can be no mistake about the position she took and there can be no mistake that she arrived here today -- and it's interesting that Mr Chiarelli and his band over there made reference to the absence of members of our caucus. Well, I'm going to make reference to the absence of the member from Thunder Bay, the leader of the Liberal Party, when this came up for first reading. But she arrived here today and changed her position 180 degrees. She went through a reformation over the course of one year that virtually takes this letter, takes the hope that she gave to constituents of Mr Murphy, and threw it in the garbage. And that is absolutely the position that she took.

Mr Chiarelli: What did Mr Harris say to St George-St David?

Mr Harnick: Our party made no such promises. The fact that we had a candidate who was an advocate for a community and was advocating for that community is something we respected, unlike the Liberal Party, who didn't respect the principles that they were delivering to the voters in St George-St David. If you want a debate on that, Mr Chiarelli, I'll have it with you any time, any place.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: Before I listen to your point of order, I would advise you, the member for Willowdale, that when you address a member, you address the member by his riding.

A point of order, the member for Brant-Haldimand.

Mr Eddy: Mr Speaker, that is exactly the point: Mr Harnick is consistently and purposely referring to the member by name. Thank you.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Please, please. I would ask the members to please not interject. There is a period afterwards which is called questions and comments; you can voice your opinion at that time.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa West, I advise you.

The member for Willowdale.

Mr Harnick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My apologies for not referring to the gentleman from Ottawa West.

Mr Eddy: Several times.

Mr Harnick: Several times. I apologize.

I wish to clearly state what we as a caucus and as a party support. We are strongly in support of the rights of the individual. We are strongly in support of fairness. We are strongly in support of equal treatment under the law, and, with equal strength of conviction, we strongly oppose discrimination. We have been clear and we have been consistent.

I know the Liberal leader has just spoken on this debate, but unlike the Liberal leader, we have been clear and we have been consistent and we have made no promises. My advice to the Liberal leader is to stop painting labels on her opponents. She has herself so tied up like a pretzel that I think what she's really painting is, today, her own tail.

It is our hope that the Legislature will defeat this bill on second reading. We do not support changing the definition of "marital status." The role of the family is an important and fundamental building block in our society. We can discuss the changing makeup of the family and society; we can discuss the pressure of raising children in a single-parent family or in a two-income family. However, I think it is entirely wrong to debate changing the definition of "spouse" or the definition of "marital status" in order to address the concerns of one community.

We are debating today a matter of representation and a matter of principle. It is a matter of representation because, as legislators, we have to draw on our beliefs about our responsibilities as elected officials. These, to me, must be balanced between our own views as to what is right and wrong and those of our constituents.

1710

In the remarks of the Attorney General, which I listened to very intently and attentively, the one aspect that was missing was, what does the community at large think? What do our constituents tell us? It is a matter of principle because the purpose of Bill 167 speaks directly to society's long-held views about the nature of human relationships and their role in ensuring a stable society.

Some of us derive these views from deeply held religious convictions and we would be untrue to our faiths, to ourselves and to others to deny this. Others in this chamber take a more secular view of the role of the traditional family. For some of us this is founded on the mounting evidence that the erosion of society's support for the traditional family has immediate, lasting and frequently tragic consequences for people, for communities and for societies as a whole.

In some quarters it is not popular, nor is it supposedly good politics, to draw either on religious convictions or on the practical evidence to make the case against changing the definition of marriage or extending adoption rights to same-sex partners as this legislation would do.

People who refer to their religious convictions on this issue are ridiculed as extremists or fundamentalists or rednecks or zealots. People who defend the traditional family on the strength of the sociological research are accused of attacking single mothers or racial minorities or, in this instance, gays and lesbians. Neither characterization is fair, but they have been common throughout this whole discussion. Their effect has been to cheapen public discourse on this important issue and to sow bitterness and division between well-meaning people of differing views.

It's interesting. There was an article in the Toronto Star today by Rosie DiManno. She comments reflectively on a discussion about opposition to this bill. She says, "Opposition to this bill -- whether on religious, moral or economic grounds -- does not make you homophobic. It doesn't mean that you have an irrational fear of gays and lesbians. It means, I think, that you do not wish to impart the benefits of a conventional society -- the traditional covenants that create order out of chaos -- to unconventional hybrid families." That's what she says.

The changing nuclear family and the consequences of this change are today being documented and studied by sociologists as never before, to see if they lie at the root of the unprecedented social turmoil we see all around us in the 1990s. From poverty to illiteracy to criminality, social scientists are fast coming to the conclusion that many of our most pressing public policy challenges can be traced directly to society's declining support for the traditional family.

We all see this in our ridings. We go to town hall meetings, and we hear about violence in schools, and we hear about increases in crime, and we hear about the breakdown of the family. We know, every member in this Legislature, the concern that mainstream communities have for issues dealing with the family today. We all hear it in our everyday experiences as members representing our constituencies.

The case for this argument was best surveyed in an essay in the May 1993 issue of the Atlantic Monthly. This celebrated article begins by pointing to the hazards of honest debate on this issue faced by those who tried to raise it in less urgent times. It recalls how in the mid-1960s Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was condemned as a racist for drawing a link between the prevalence of black single-mother families and the lower socioeconomic standing of black children. Every time the issue of family structures has been raised, it notes the response has been at first controversy, then retreat and finally silence.

The essay continues, and I commend it to everyone in this Legislature, through 21 dense pages of evidence drawn from dozens of studies, all of which point to the same conclusion, that with the decline of society's support for the traditional family and the emergence of so-called alternative family models follows the decline of the social, psychological and economic development of society as a whole.

It ends with this caution: "Taken together, the research presents a powerful challenge to the view of family change as social progress. Not a single one of the assumptions underlying that view can be sustained against the empirical evidence."

When I refer to that article, I refer to it because it is good reason to cause concern in communities across this province. In fact it does cause concern, legitimate concern.

The NDP legislation proposes to change the definition of "spouse". What I believe is happening in society is that the original role and purpose of family benefits was to provide financial support to two people who had entered into the institution of marriage with a view to raising a family in the manner that was more common in the post-Second-World-War economy. That's what the traditional nuclear family is. As the definition of that family unit changes in today's modern society, the original parameters of family benefits must also change. This in and of itself would be a very complex discussion.

The debate over the role and purpose of benefits and how they should be administered is a far different debate. If we are going to debate support benefits and how fairly they are available, we should debate the fairness across all categories, not just for one particular interest group. We should debate the purpose of benefit plans and how they may have changed.

That debate would be for a different social and economic purpose than the debate in which we are currently engaged. That debate would recognize that sometimes a child looks after an aging parent. There is a real dependency in that situation. Why are we not addressing that today? Why are we approaching this only to benefit one narrow interest group?

We have problems with pensions and portability and people who work for many years at one company and then leave and start again. Their pensions are not the same amount at the end of their career as if they had stayed in one place in many, many cases. Why are we not addressing those inequities as well?

We're engaged in this debate and the debate on the Liberal bill because they attempt to deal with specific concerns of the gay community alone. Changing definitions of an institution such as marriage to address the concerns of one narrow group is the wrong way to go.

You know, Mr Speaker, it's doing a bit of mental gymnastics when you change the definition of "spouse" and you change the definition of "marital status" and you don't recognize or pretend not to recognize that what you're really doing in an indirect way, because you can't do it directly, is changing the institution of marriage.

Quite simply, that makes this bill very unpalatable to the majority of people who live in my riding and to the majority of people who live in ridings represented by my colleagues and evidently represented by members in the Liberal caucus on the basis of the change that their leader has made on the way to Rome.

1720

If there is discrimination, we must root it out. As I indicated at the outset, we are opposed to any and all discrimination and we are in support of fairness under the law. If there is unfairness or discrimination, the courts should and must act.

We know -- the Attorney General spoke about it -- that with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that Pierre Trudeau gave this country the courts now have a legislative function. Many judges over the years since 1982 have not been happy about that. They have not been happy about the change in their role as judges because they are being asked to legislate. That has become a recognized function under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We will support the courts' rulings on these matters. The charter and the court system are designed to protect rights and freedoms. If there is unfairness or inequity in the administration of benefit plans, let's deal with that.

Let's deal with situations where brothers or sisters live in a situation of dependency with one another. Let's look at situations where an aged parent is being looked after by a child. If there is unfairness or inequity in the administration of those benefit plans, let's deal with that. Let's not just deal with it in a situation where there has to be a conjugal relationship.

Naming a beneficiary for pension benefits, health benefits and other forms of benefits can be changed without changing the institution of marriage. I see in today's paper that there was reference to a registered domestic partnership scheme in California, which really is a scheme used to regulate the economic rights of people living together.

My caucus colleagues and I will be opposing this bill. It's not a bill that technically is particularly difficult. It's a bill that effectively changes the definition of "spouse," exactly the bill that the Liberal leader advocated before the by-election in St George-St David.

There is no other conclusion that one can come to when someone advocates in a letter that says, "I wrote to the former Attorney General asking for action on the government's promised review of all provincial policies and laws that contain a definition of 'spouse' with a view to possible reform."

There is only one kind of reform that could have been made or that can be made to the definition of "spouse," and that is the reform that the New Democratic government, the New Democratic Party, is now making and that is the reform that the Liberal leader was advocating a year ago. These are her own words.

She went even further and said, "If you do not act and in the unlikely event that the courts have not yet finally settled the matter within two years, please be assured that a future Liberal government will move swiftly to take the action which I am requesting you to take immediately."

There is no doubt about what the Liberal leader was saying.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): What by-election was that?

Mr Harnick: The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs asks me what by-election that was. That was the by-election in St George-St David where promises were made and promises evidently are not being kept.

There is one very interesting issue that I wish to close on. As you heard earlier from the remarks of the Attorney General, by changing the definition of "spouse" we are amending approximately 55 other statutes. One of those statutes is a very interesting statute to amend. It's the statute that deals with members' conflict of interest. In the compendium that the Attorney General has provided us with, it talks about how the conflict-of-interest acts which affect the individual members of this Legislature are to be dealt with. It says:

"In order to address privacy concerns which may arise if members are required to disclose the existence of a same-sex spouse, the acts are amended to require disclosure by all household members. These amendments will not weaken the conflict rules but will address privacy concerns."

Just in closing, it strikes me that if I have a wife, I'm proud to disclose who my wife is. People who live in common-law relationships disclose who their partners are. If you're going to amend legislation and you want to amend it broadly and you want to be intellectually honest about it, you have to go the whole nine yards. I see in this particular aspect of the bill a certain reluctance, a certain standard being set for politicians that's going to be different from the rest of the community, and I don't think that's right.

I appreciate having had the opportunity of speaking on behalf of my party on this issue and putting my remarks on the record and confirming that my party will be voting against this bill on second reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Malkowski: I wish to respond to the member for Willowdale. In your comments you talked a little bit specifically about communities, the opinion of communities and constituencies, and you said Marion Boyd, our Attorney General, made no comment about that.

I would like to present some facts. In fact, what is true is that many businesses, community organizations and companies offer same-sex benefits: the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Sun, Bell Canada, IBM and many other businesses. I would have thought, given your political party's contributions to corporations and businesses, that you would have been representing their interests when they are already doing this. I would challenge you on that.

Another point: If the goal is to be cost-effective and to reduce the costs of our expenditures, it makes economic sense that we reduce the costs of court challenges, because court expenses, as these things go through the courts, will increase, and we need to make sure we decrease the costs. I was wondering why, when you're advocating that we reduce the costs of government.

Also, when you were talking about community and business interests when business already does this, it would seem you're trying very hard to cover the facts and not really representing them well when many large corporations and private businesses already do this, cover same-sex benefits. Could you tell me, please, if you feel you're representing those well? If not, no.

1730

Mr Chiarelli: First of all, I want to say that I agree with the substance of most of what the member for Willowdale has indicated. I too am opposed to Bill 45. I too am opposed to Bill 167, mainly for the reasons the member has set out.

However, I really take exception to his political characterization of what my leader has said and particularly what his leader has said. This issue was nowhere on the political landscape until there happened to be a by-election in St George-St David. As we know, there is a very large gay-lesbian population in that particular riding and it became a very significant issue in that by-election.

I want to read from one of the pieces of election material by the Conservative candidate, which says: "My leader, Mike Harris, is encouraging me to work to redefine the term 'spouse' in all legislation. It must include a wider range of individuals in committed, supportive relationships, including same-sex couples."

Also, another document indicates, "Mike encourages the redefinition of the term 'spouse' in all legislation, allowing gay marriage, adoption and education." That's a Conservative campaign brochure, March 1993.

It's very strange that we would have the member for Willowdale standing here today and saying that his leader has been consistent and his party has been consistent. Yes, they were consistent in St George-St David, but when it came to Victoria-Haliburton they did a complete flip-flop. I really question the credibility of their leader when he can flip-flop so dramatically from by-election to by-election when it's politically convenient to do so.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I was not going to partake in this debate, but I cannot resist rising to the comments made by the member for Ottawa West.

Mr Chiarelli: Talk to the quote.

Mr Eves: I think he would like to differentiate between a quote of a former Conservative candidate --

Mr Chiarelli: It's Mike's quote.

Mr Eves: It's not a quote of Mr Harris. You, sir, are lying. Is that clear enough for you? Retract that remark. It is not a quote of Mr Harris's; it is a quote of a former Conservative candidate. There is a difference.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Parry Sound, order.

Mr Chiarelli: It's from a letter written by your leader.

Mr Eves: That, sir, is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Mr Harris said. You are lying.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat.

Mr Eves: I will not withdraw that remark unless he withdraws the lie.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Is this your fallback plan?

Mr Eves: This is totally unplanned. This is a response to a lie from the member for Ottawa West. I would ask him to withdraw his lie and I'll withdraw the "lying" remark.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Parry Sound, I would ask you to withdraw your remark.

Mr Eves: I will withdraw my remark when the member for Ottawa West withdraws his lie.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Parry Sound, I ask you to withdraw explicitly.

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, I have never, ever been placed in this position in my 13-plus years in this Legislature, but I cannot sit here and allow the member for Ottawa West to deliberately misrepresent and lie with respect to what my leader said, because he didn't say it. It was a former Conservative candidate.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Parry Sound, if you do not withdraw your remark, I have no other alternative than to ask you to leave this House. Will you withdraw?

Mr Eves: No, I will not.

The Deputy Speaker: Please, Sergeant at Arms.

Mr Eves left the chamber.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'm hoping to be able to speak to this bill at some length a little later, but right now I want to remind people of what the Attorney General said when she spoke.

I listened carefully, as I noticed everybody did at that time. People listened with respect to what she had to say. I am personally bothered by what's happening in this House. I see other people from all sides shaking their head. I would ask that we try to maintain our dignity and do as the Attorney General asked and listen with respect to --

Mrs Marland: Madam Minister, if you are talking about who is out of order, the member for Downsview accused me of --

Hon Ms Churley: This is my two minutes. What I would ask people to do is to listen with respect to what everybody has to say. I think this is an important issue to a lot of people not only in this House but who may be watching this on TV or in the galleries. I think we're doing a disservice to ourselves on all sides of the House to get into this form of debate.

Interjections.

Hon Ms Churley: I would really ask, as people continue to yell, to remember that we are discussing the lives of people who are affected by this right now as we talk. I personally don't care that much what the Liberals said in the past. I don't care what the Tories said in the past. What I care about today is that people listen to each other and what we do as a group here in this room for the people of Ontario for whom this bill means so much. What the final vote is, is what matters now, so I would ask people to please listen to each other with respect.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Willowdale, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Harnick: This is undoubtedly one of the most, probably the most, emotional issue that we as a Legislature will deal with. What makes it even a more emotional issue is that people make promises along the way. They make promises, and people depend on those promises.

Our party made no promises. We had a candidate who ran and who was encouraged to do what she believed in, and in our party, we have the latitude to do that. Evidently, in the Liberal Party and in the New Democratic Party, they don't have the latitude to do that.

I can appreciate that the member for Ottawa West is excited and this is an emotional issue. He's excited because he's seen his leader make a change and adopt a position that he can now live with for political, expedient purposes. That is exactly why the member is so full of vinegar today, to be polite. That is exactly why he is excited, because he sees the change in Liberal Party policy as something that will help him get elected, and he forgets the commitment that was once made.

The politics involved in this are dependent upon the promises that people made. My party made no promises along the lines of the Liberal Party.

Mr Malkowski: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would like to say that the member refused to answer my specific questions I had posed to him regarding representation of large businesses that are currently --

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. No, this is not a point of privilege.

Any further debate?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I appreciate the opportunity to be in the Legislature today and to have listened to those who have preceded me in the debate and to join in this debate.

There have been many important bills we have had the opportunity to deal with in this House, some which have been of great importance to me, and I have always felt honoured to be able to participate in the democratic process in this way. But I suspect there are many days in which the debates that take place are framed in partisan political ways that really are scoring points and trying to get the 30-second clip, which is something I've never been very good at, getting something said short enough in terms of getting a 30-second clip --

Interjection: Three minutes.

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes, three minutes, let alone 30 seconds. But I feel an import to the discussion today that goes beyond some of the games-playing that goes on in here. Perhaps it's because of the importance of this issue to me personally and how deeply I feel about it and how long I have felt that it is important that we arrive at a point in the province of Ontario where we can pass legislation such as this.

Of course, I express my support for the Attorney General's bill and my hope that through the course of debate and committee hearings we will be able to win enough support of enough members in this House to pass this legislation.

As members speak to what is actually being proposed in the legislation, it's important, I think, that we underline what the actual amendments are. I speak in particular in response to the member for Willowdale, who just spoke, who I think on a number of occasions talked about this as being a change to the definition of "marriage."

That invokes a certain response in some parts of the population when they think about marriage. I don't know the history of marriage, but I know as I've grown up I've thought of marriage as something that takes place usually in the confines of a church and of a religious commitment and a religious ceremony.

1740

I think it is important that although we have statutes that govern marriage, we understand that those statutes are in fact at a federal level and that nothing in the legislation coming forward is actually changing the institution of marriage. What it is trying to do is to bring about an end to discrimination in how families are treated and how couples who are devoted to each other, who are together in common-law relationship outside of the federally sanctioned or church-sanctioned marriage, are treated in our society. It's a bringing of equity to that situation.

Specifically, I want to go through what the reforms are, and I hope that every member who speaks to this will articulate it again, because we are engaging in a discussion among ourselves but in a discussion for the public of Ontario in which, through the honest debate of these issues, we put them forward and we are able to educate people and understand and engage them in the discussion and then gauge their response. We can't gauge public response if we don't have the real issues out there.

I urge all of us to put out in all of our discussions what the actual amendments are, and I'm going to take a moment just to go through what the amendments attempt to achieve. Then I want to speak to my own personal feelings about them and discussions I've had with people in my constituency and others in the province and why I support these particular amendments.

The reforms that have been put forward before us for second reading today, first of all, eliminate discrimination. They provide same-sex couples with rights and obligations equal to those of opposite sex common-law couples. That is the equation we have to continue to keep in our mind as we go through this debate and look at these amendments. Specifically, the reforms will eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples by amending the interpretation of all provincial laws which provide the benefits and the obligations or the rights that are based on that spousal status of being an opposite-sex common-law couple.

Specifically, I underscore again, these amendments do not address the issue of marriage, as has been alluded to a number of times outside the House and in the House in the debate even today. It does not deal with the issue of marriage. That is an area of federal jurisdiction. We couldn't change it if we wanted to, but that is not what we're attempting to establish by the amendments being brought forward here.

Specifically, these reforms will provide equal rights on survivors' pensions for same-sex couples, people who live together. Currently, if one spouse dies there is a survivor's benefit that is in a pension plan. Couples of the same sex are not granted the same rights under our laws because our definition of that spousal benefit is defined in heterosexual terms.

If you have a loving couple living together, who have been together for years, as a couple in my riding have just recently experienced -- and one partner died and I attended that funeral. It was terribly moving, sitting down afterwards with the surviving spouse to understand all of the barriers that he faced, the problems he had had in attending at the hospital, the problems he had had in offering his advice about what his partner would have wanted with respect to medical treatment, and then after suffering through the death of his partner knowing that things like inheritance and pension survival benefits, all of those things, were barriers to his proceeding with his life as he would if he were in a common-law relationship.

Specifically, these reforms will provide same-sex spouses with the option to enter into contracts with each other, to grant them the same property rights, the same way that opposite-sex common-law couples do. I keep stressing that equation because I want it to be understood: We are simply allowing the same situation that exists for opposite-sex common-laws to exist for same-sex couples.

The last area is a change to the conflict-of-interest laws that would require disclosure. If you think for a moment, all of us in this House, who are subject to conflict-of-interest laws, must disclose the business interests of our spouses if we are involved in a heterosexual relationship, either married or common-law. But there is no obligation on us, if we are involved in a relationship and part of a same-sex couple, to disclose the business obligations or interests or assets of our partner because, by definition in the conflict of interest, the commitment or the obligation to disclose assets of your spouse is subject to the definition, a heterosexual definition. So there are reasons that we should proceed on all of these fronts.

I do need to respond, particularly on the conflict of interest, to something that the member from Willowdale said. He found it odd that we would in those amendments build in some protection for privacy rights of couples by saying that it would be all household members who would have to disclose under conflict of interest, so that if there was an individual who was involved in a relationship with a partner of the same sex, they would not be forced to disclose that relationship. They would be forced to disclose the assets of the person living in the household with them but would not be forced to disclose that relationship.

The member opposite was surprised by that and said: "If you want to take this, you've got to go the whole nine yards," I think were his words. "You've got to go for it all. If you're going to force through these kinds of changes to give recognition to alternative families in our society, then you've got to go all the way."

I'll tell you, there's a very good reason for not going all the way with respect to the conflict of interest, and that is the fact that people who are involved in same-sex couples, homosexuals, gays, lesbians, are still subject to extraordinary discrimination in our society. You cannot turn a blind eye to that fact. You cannot just say you must force that disclosure.

I hope we arrive at a day when there won't be a question about needing to guard the privacy of individuals, but I will fight to ensure that individuals have that right of privacy and choice about whether to disclose their sexual orientation because in this society, in this province, in this country, on this continent, gays and lesbians are not free from persecution.

The oppression is still there, the discrimination is still there. The steps we are taking are steps that build on very important initiatives like the addition of sexual orientation to the Human Rights Code, steps that build towards ending that discrimination, but it's not over yet and it won't be over yet with this legislation. But, boy, this is important for us to take these next steps.

Much of the discussion with respect to this bill from those who have spoken in opposition have talked about it as being a threat to the traditional family. I'm not sure I understand that. Perhaps we all have the same understanding of traditional family, and I'd like to ask people to explain what they mean by that.

Is a traditional family, as in some ethnoracial communities I know, a family in which children and parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles live together and are supportive and it's a large, loving family unit and people give and share and have joint responsibilities in the care for their children of their family? Is a traditional family the more North American nuclear family, two parents and the children? Is that the traditional family?

There are many other kinds of families which, as time goes on and there is more experience, it has perhaps become quite traditional to find in our society as well. There are single-parent families, either by choice or by circumstance; perhaps a spouse has died. Is that no longer a traditional family? If my spouse has died, are my children and I not defined as traditional any more? Or is traditional being put forward in the view of a heterosexual traditional family, that there must be a male and a female to have come together in a couple? Or is traditional being put forward in the way in which elders in my family viewed traditional families as those being married, officially sanctioned by the state or the church, not a common law?

1750

I remember a time in my family in which living in a common-law relationship was totally, totally viewed with disdain and brought such emotional turmoil to the family discussions that it's hard to believe today, in today's society, that this could have happened, but it did.

So I have to ask people to push this image of traditional family in the words and step behind the words or fold, unfold the covering of those words and tell me what it is they're talking about.

I was once married. I was once in a common-law couple relationship for more years actually than I was married. I'm now single. I have a family that I define as my family. How can anyone else define for me what is a traditional family?

I look to my friends, and I have friends who are part of my view of the world of families that I interact with, and some of those family friends are gays and some of them are lesbians who are raising children, who are in family units, who are my friends, and I fiercely, fiercely want to defend their rights. I want to work to ensure that all of us take the steps necessary to defend their ability to be a family unit. I want to give you a couple of examples.

Someone mentioned that this issue wasn't on the political map until the by-election in St George-St David. Well, not so; not even in terms of this legislative sitting is that so.

When I was first appointed to cabinet and I held the portfolio of Chair of Management Board, I brought forward and introduced in a statement in this Legislature change to the benefit provisions in the Ontario public service to deal with the 90,000-plus employees of the Ontario government, to bring about a change in provision of benefits so that same-sex couples would no longer be discriminated against and would be able to take part in the benefit plans on the same basis as opposite-sex, common-law couples.

I got a picture sent to my office. It was drawn by a child of about the age of 10 or 11, I'm guessing. I should know; I know the child. I think she was about 10 or 11 at the time. It was eyes and a big smile and teeth, and on the teeth were shiny silver braces. This picture, from a young girl named Jessie, was her showing how she was going to be looking in a month down the road because she was finally going to be able to get braces because of the change in the benefit package that we made.

Her parents are two of my close women friends, one of whom is her natural mother, who was pursuing further education and not in employment that offered the kind of benefit package that government employees have. Jessie's natural mother's partner, whom Jessie views as one of her parents, always has -- she's been there since Jessie was born and helped raise Jessie as an equal partner, an equal parent -- works for the Ontario government, but in the past her benefits and benefit package weren't available to her partner or to her two daughters. Today they are.

This issue has been around longer than this bill coming forward or longer than the St George-St David by-election. Quite frankly, given the steps that the previous Legislature took with respect to the Human Rights Code, we know this is an issue that is growing and that public awareness is growing and that the time is coming for us to make the next steps, and together I hope we will define what those next steps are.

Other friends of mine, again two close women friends, have a son. The son's about nine. They have been the two parental figures in that son's life for all of his life. One of my women friends is the natural mother. My other woman friend can't take legal steps to ensure that if anything ever happened to her partner, the son's natural mother and therefore legal parent -- she is without any power to take legal steps to ensure that if anything ever happened to that legal parent, she would be the continuing legal guardian of that child.

She has been that child's parent for nine years. This is not going out and applying to adopt a child and bring a child into this family. She is that child's parent, and the law prohibits her from being the legal parent. It's wrong.

Someone asked, "What does your community say?" In our communities, our neighbours, our relatives -- we know, all of us, gays and lesbians and parents of gays and lesbians or sisters and brothers of gays and lesbians, who want to see their family members or their neighbours treated the same as everyone else in terms of the rights and benefits and obligations that we, as a state, provide to people. These are taxpayers, these are citizens. Why should they be disfranchised in any way based on their sexual orientation, which is already grounds against which you cannot discriminate in this province? Why should we perpetuate the discrimination?

This bill does not change the institution of marriage as we know marriage in the state of the church and the religious meaning behind that. We perhaps did that a long time ago when we accepted, as a society, common-law marriages. We've got to come to the point where we can come to terms with taking this next step.

What does the community say? I think the community needs to debate this. I think the community needs to hear in clear, honest terms what the issues are and what the amendments actually are. I think different communities will respond in different ways. It's important that this bill move through to public hearings so that the community can in fact participate. It would be dreadfully wrong if we stopped the debate before it got to that point by the way in which we vote in this House.

One of the things I feel very strongly is that there are sometimes issues that come before us as legislators on which we must take a stand based on what we truly believe is just right, the right thing to do. Even though we go out and we talk to our communities, engage our communities, defend our beliefs and principles and our actions with that community, sometimes I think we just have to take these positions and move forward.

I think of the debates over the years in legislatures, particularly the federal Parliament, with respect to capital punishment. When that issue came forward, I know the number of times in my own community when the phones would ring to the federal member of Parliament and to the provincial MPP in their constituency offices, overwhelmingly supporting capital punishment at that point in time because of the mood of the nation at that time or the issues or a particular heinous crime that had provoked the debate.

But thank God that legislators of the day -- and there have been several days -- time and time again have searched through the issue and have worked through it with people close by them and found the support to go out and to take the position that they believed was the right position, irrespective perhaps of what the community might have been saying at that point in time.

I actually believe that there are many people in our community of Ontario, if we engage in this discussion and they see the actual amendments and we work it through with them and we speak about it and we allow people to be heard and we talk it through, many, in fact I think the majority, who will support taking this step at this time.

It's tough to get there. Yes, it invokes a lot of emotional response, and sometimes when words like "marriage" and others are mixed into it, it's hard to get to the clear picture. But I believe the majority of people will support this, and I would hope we will take this to the second reading public hearing debate in order to hear from people and to be able to engage people in that debate.

There are a number of other points that I wish to make in this debate, but as we have arrived at 6 of the clock, I will simply at this point in time adjourn the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1801.

1 juin 1994