Journal des débats 1994-juin-02 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The purpose of the legislation, as you can see, is rather short. The purpose of the legislation is to reduce the amount of tax charged to the horse racing industry on parimutuel wagering in the province of Ontario.

Shortly put, there are now established by the act two rates of taxation: one of 9% on triactor bets and one of 7% on other parimutuel betting in the province of Ontario. The amendment that I am proposing to the Race Tracks Tax Act, which I must admit is a mouthful, would reduce that rate of taxation to one half of 1%, which would be, I think, in line with other jurisdictions that have the same amount of gambling or gaming revenue that the province of Ontario now has.

I would like to start by explaining, I think, for a lot of people that when the horse racing industry first came into being in the province of Ontario, it had a virtual monopoly on gaming, or gambling, in the province. When the rates of taxation were established that are currently in the Race Tracks Tax Act, it was done on the assumption that the horse racing industry represented 100% of gaming, or gambling, in the province of Ontario.

As we all know, that has changed dramatically over the years. With the advent of lotteries, some of which a government that I was part of brought in, and successive governments brought in additional ones, with the advent of charitable gaming, with the advent of sports lotteries now, or Sport Select, or Pro Line, whichever you'd like to call it, and now ultimately casino gambling, the horse racing industry has found that its share of the gaming dollar in the province has been reduced to somewhat less than 24%. I am here to predict that it's about to go even lower with the advent of casino gambling in the province.

I think there are a lot of things also that some people don't understand. In 1993, at some 19 racetracks across the province of Ontario of various kinds and descriptions, the income from across the province amounted to about $1.025 billion, roundly put, which is a lot of money. The province of Ontario takes out of that, by way of taxation, approximately -- I'm rounding these figures off -- $75 million a year. The government ends up retaining about $50 million a year, because through various programs it puts back into the horse racing industry approximately $25 million.

I want to make it clear, because there seems to be some uncertainty or lack of clarity among some groups in the horse racing industry itself: That money is not refunded to the horse racing industry by the Race Tracks Tax Act. There is nothing in this bill or nothing in the original act, which I have in front of me, or the regulations to the act that provide for one cent going back to the horse racing industry. It is done by order in council every year by the provincial government. In other words, the cabinet of the day decides every year how much money it wants to put back into the horse racing industry through various forms and programs.

My proposal would allow the horse racing industry to keep approximately $70 million a year, as opposed to the $25 million that now goes back in. I'm proposing that the horse racing industry be permitted to keep $70 million a year to divide up among the various groups. If the various groups aren't able to come to some mutual agreement as to how that should be done, then the government can do it by order in council, it can do it by regulation, it can help the parties resolve their differences, if there are any, with respect to negotiation as to how that could be split up.

I would like to briefly go over comparisons to other jurisdictions of the amount of tax that the province of Ontario charges versus other provinces and other North American jurisdictions. In Ontario we are the highest-taxed in the horse racing industry. We are at some 5%. That is the net effect of the two taxes after the rebates are taken into account. Most provinces are somewhere in between. The province of Alberta is 0.76%, three quarters of 1%, and other provinces beyond that vary from 1% to 3.6%. If you want to compare that with the North American average, the North American average is about half of what we are charged in the province of Ontario, ranging all the way from zero -- like no tax in the state of New Jersey -- to about 4.5%, depending on the type of bet, in the state of Michigan.

I also would like to outline for several members, because they may not be aware, that the horse racing industry is very important to the agricultural industry in Ontario as well. Directly, the horse racing industry accounts for some $350 million a year in absolute, direct moneys into the agricultural industry, but there are indirect benefits to the agricultural industry in the amount of $2.2 billion a year. Those are big numbers, and they're very significant to the agricultural industry in Ontario.

As a matter of fact, I had a meeting about two weeks ago with Roger George, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, who is fully supportive of my bill, who recognizes that the horse racing industry is in serious jeopardy and he would like to see this bill passed or, if not this bill, some bill that would dramatically reduce the amount of tax that is charged to the horse racing industry, because he feels that agriculture is also threatened. The horse racing industry accounts for about 6% of total agricultural expenditures every year in the province of Ontario. It also is responsible for, depending on whose figures you want to use, anywhere from 28,000 to 50,000 employees across the province who are directly or indirectly affected by the horse racing industry.

1010

I also would like to talk for a couple of minutes about the rate of taxation that the province of Ontario is charging on other competing forms of gaming. Of course, the province itself is into a lot of different forms of gambling, and I've mentioned some of them. It's estimated by the Ontario Jockey Club that the advent of Pro Line sports, when Greenwood Race Track was in operation, resulted in a decline of 7% of the handle or betting at Greenwood alone just because of Pro Line sports betting that the province introduced.

The province, when it taxes its new casino -- which recently just opened, as I am sure most members are aware, in Windsor -- says that it is taxing at a rate of 20%, but that is a misnomer. I will explain how that taxation system works. What they do is take a rate of 20% and multiply it times the win, or percentage amount that is the win, in a particular game. So if it was blackjack -- I think it's generally established across North America that where we have casino gambling, blackjack gaming returns 1.2% to the operator -- therefore, you multiply 20% times 1.2% and the effective rate of taxation that the province has on blackjack at its own casino in Windsor is 0.24%, less than one quarter of 1%. And yet they're saying to the horse racing industry: "We're going to tax you 9% and 7% and we're going to be nice guys; we're going to give you back 2%." But they're effectively taxing them at a rate of 5%, or about 20 times what they tax themselves on blackjack games in their new casino in Windsor. That is not fair.

The horse racing industry wants a fair shake. They want to be put on a level playing field. They want to have the same opportunities that the province is giving to its own casino and its own forms of gambling.

I would like to refer to a 1990 report for the Ontario Horse Racing and Breeding Association done by the firm of Ernst and Young. Back in 1990, long before casino gambling -- in fact, when Bob Rae was still saying that there will never be casino gambling in the province of Ontario -- the horse racing industry was asking that this tax be reduced from an effective rate of 5% to 2% and that the reduction be equally shared among the industry. That is the same thing that I am asking for today, except I am asking for a more realistic rate of one half of 1%. I will be making other remarks further on when I have an opportunity to wrap up later and I'd appreciate hearing what other honourable members have to say about this bill.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'm pleased to rise to speak towards Bill 130, the bill introduced by the member for Parry Sound. Let me say I am glad to see that the member for Parry Sound is a little calmer today and has gotten over some of his acts of yesterday and is respecting the rules of this House today.

I understand where the member is coming from in terms of introducing this bill, in terms of a sense of what he feels he is doing in the best interests of the horse racing industry. Let me say that the horse racing industry does play an important part in the economy of the province of Ontario, not only the economy in general, but particularly in the agricultural economy, in the rural economy. Most of us, as rural members, particularly in southern Ontario but I know in central Ontario and in some parts of the north as well, have people who raise horses to compete in races.

The member is trying to put forward what he feels is an effective solution to what is perceived as a problem of too much taxation in the industry. Let me say, though, that not everyone in the horse racing industry agrees with the legislation as it has been put forward.

I had an opportunity this morning to have a bit of a chit-chat with Steve Klugman, who is the general manager of the Horseman's Benevolent and Protective Association of Ontario. They're very actively involved in the horse racing industry and represent a lot of breeders and trainers. They had some concerns, particularly about what the impact of this amendment would mean on the racetrack industry currently.

I guess it's important to note that the impact of the bill Mr Eves has put forward implies that the rebate program would go by the wayside. So the approximately 2%, 2.5% rebate that's there for racetrack improvement and for increasing some of the prizes in the races would also go by the wayside as a result of this bill. This would take a great deal of money out of the industry, millions of dollars and in some cases tens of millions of dollars. They believe at this time that would have a very negative impact on the horse racing industry in terms of smaller pools.

Mr Eves: Maybe we should increase the tax. They could have a bigger rebate.

Mr Sutherland: The member for Parry Sound says, "Increase so you have a larger rebate."

We're often told about listening to the different groups out there. I'm just presenting what has been expressed I know in written form to the member for Parry Sound, to the leaders of all three parties, to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and also the Minister of Finance, and through the conversation I had this morning with Mr Klugman. I also understand that they're not the only organization that is concerned about this. I understand even a former colleague of the member for Parry Sound has some concerns about this piece of legislation.

Let me say, though, that the government is committed to supporting the horse racing industry, and that has been demonstrated through different means. I think of the tremendous effort by the industry, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the minister herself, who I know personally went to Kentucky to lobby with the jockey club to help bring the Breeder's Cup race to Ontario. As part of that is our commitment to upgrading some of the racetracks associated with that very significant event that will bring worldwide attention to racing in Ontario and the facilities that we offer. Those types of supports are in place.

We do know as well that the third party says, "Yes, if you just reduce all the taxes, everything's going to be fine and dandy." We know their economic model is a little flawed, or I should say substantially flawed, in terms of what impact that will have on the deficit.

The government certainly is committed to continuing to work with the horse racing industry. I did just want to point out, though, that there are a couple of organizations that do have some serious concerns about the way this legislation has been put forward.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): It's a very important matter and I rise in full support of the bill until such time as the present government comes in with some better solution or indeed a very firm and strong support for an industry that is in trouble and that is so important in this province.

I'm disappointed that the member for Oxford didn't come forward with some suggestions to replace the bill that's being presented and that we are presently debating, because I think it's very necessary to take some strong and firm action and to take it now.

It's very important because it doesn't just affect the horse racing industry, which is a very large industry, and I have some facts about that which I'd like to submit, but it affects so many jobs: at the racetrack, on horse breeding farms, horse training farms and indeed the family farms as well. Agriculture of course has a real market with the horse industry in all phases. It's a very important part of the whole thing because it does mean a market for hay and grain etc.

1020

I have two important facts that I want to stress. One is that the citizens of Ontario, the taxpayers who pay us and the cost of operating this establishment and the provincial government, demand, in addition to law and order, responsive, responsible government, and I call on the government to be responsive in this case, to look at the matter and bring in some changes that will help. That's why I'm supporting this bill.

The horse race industry is in trouble, there's no doubt about it, so let's respond; let's do something before it goes down and we see a lot more problems. Now is the time to act. I'd go as far as to state that failure by the government to support this bill, or indeed some strong replacement for it, to amend the Race Tracks Tax Act, to reduce it substantially, will be seen as another attack on agriculture and the family farm, and I feel that, along with many others.

We've seen many attacks on agriculture and the family farm by this government such as unionization of farm workers, although the bill has not been passed but it is presently under debate; reduction of the annual budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs every year since the government has taken office; and cancellation of the very successful and important red meat program in this province. Those are some things.

There is an opportunity to do something at this present time that is so important for the horse racing industry. The figures I have that have been compiled advise that the industry contributes $2 billion to the economy of Ontario annually. The industry requires $350 million in feed, hay, straw and local services and provides a tremendous amount of jobs. It supports 50,000 jobs in Ontario, and that doesn't go on to include all of the jobs in the other industries that support that particular industry.

It's very important, it's crucial to support it, and I urge the government to either support this bill or replace it with something immediately that will substantially support the horse racing industry in this province. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the bill.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise today and have a chance to put a few comments on the record with regard to private member's Bill 130. It takes a commonsense approach to an industry that is staggering under the weight of a massive tax burden.

Private member's Bill 130, An Act to amend the Race Tracks Tax Act, introduced by my colleague the member for Parry Sound on December 2, 1993, is aimed at reducing the tax on parimutuel betting to 0.5%. Currently the tax rate on triactor bets is 9% and is 7% on all other bets.

Ontario's racing industry is currently taxed at the second-highest rate in North America. That's completely unacceptable for an industry that has a $2-billion economic impact annually.

Coupled with this excessive tax burden is the NDP government's decision to roll the dice with the economic wellbeing of the racing industry when it established casino gambling in Ontario.

The government decided to roll the dice and totally ignore what the economic impact would be to the racing industry. It is estimated to be more than $2 billion, including $500 million worth of salaries and wages for more than 40,000 full- and part-time workers; $1.17 billion from suppliers, both direct and indirect; $240 million worth of capital expenditures annually; $240 million worth of spectator expenditures, and that does not include the $889 million in wagering; and a $50-million trade balance.

The tax burden on the racing industry includes $3.2 million in sales tax collected at tracks; $6.1 million in parimutuel tax collected at tracks; $7.1 million worth of federal tax; and, not calculated, property taxes and the business taxes. So there is a major, major amount of dollars at stake here.

The horse breeding and racing industry is viewed as a resource industry that is labour-intensive. The employment base is primarily composed of unskilled, low-paying positions working on farms and in backstretch facilities at the racetracks. It is a widely held belief that due to the lack of skills and low education levels of many of these employees, social assistance programs would be their only alternative.

When the breeding and racing industries encounter a decline in purses, regardless of the cause, there would no doubt be an immediate reduction in employment levels. Substantial reductions would put the purses at a level that would not be financially viable or competitive with surrounding jurisdictions, and large owners would either leave the business or cater to the other market.

Breeding and racing farms are widely spread across the province of Ontario and play a significant role in our agricultural community. Some horse farms purchase feed, hay, straw and services locally, while others grow their own and rely on local farmers for assistance. The dollar value of this activity alone is estimated to be over $350 million annually.

Funds generated in the racing program through purse winnings pay the costs of feed and stabling. Many local farmers depend on orders from breeding and racing operations to remain viable. Some feed mills rely almost entirely on a strong horse industry to stay in business.

Timber companies have a large volume of their businesses directed at the horse industry as a result of significant fencing requirements, and more recently many horse owners are utilizing large volumes of wood shavings from northern Ontario in their stalls.

I trust you will agree that by supporting private member's Bill 130, you will also be supporting employment and agriculture in Ontario.

In conclusion, I'd like to bring to your attention a letter I received just yesterday from Jane Hutchings, general manager of Barrie Raceway Holdings Ltd.

"I am writing on behalf of my board of directors and the horse racing community at Barrie Raceway to express our support for Mr Eves's Bill 130, An Act to amend the Race Tracks Tax Act.

"Racing in Ontario is taxed at the second-highest rate in North America, and the industry is staggering under this burden.

"In order for racing to compete on a level playing field with other forms of gaming which are taxed at a much more favourable rate, an amendment of this sort is necessary.

"This adjustment would be an investment by the government in an industry which employs almost 40,000 people in the province and which has a $2-billion economic impact annually, a great deal of it in agriculture.

"Racing is most appreciative of the efforts of Mr Eves and yourself on our behalf, and we express our support of this initiative."

I urge my colleagues here today to join with the member for Parry Sound in investing in the future of an important industry by supporting Bill 130. I know many farmers in my area who sell hay, straw and grain to the Barrie Raceway. It keeps them in business. It is a viable industry going downhill because of the lack of enthusiasm of this government to take this tax off, and I would urge every member to vote for this bill.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Indeed I'm very pleased to speak on this bill here today which has been brought forward by the member for Parry Sound.

First let me take this opportunity to recognize the member's continued support of the horse racing industry in this province. Indeed, I had the pleasure of hearing him in this regard during the hearings on the casino bill, which was known as Bill 8 at that particular time.

However, there are major problems with this bill. As my colleague the member for Oxford pointed out, a former colleague of his has major problems with Bill 130, as well as a number of other organizations involved in the racing industry.

1030

Let me, for example, read a letter from the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of Ontario. It states:

"The livelihood of racing is the purse moneys paid to owners. A great part of the purse moneys since the mid-1970s has been provided through the Ontario thoroughbred improvement program by virtue of the Ontario government's rebating 2% of the provincial tax on parimutuel wagering back to the horsemen in the form of purses."

"A petition to the ministry in the mid-1980s for further government assistance to the industry was heard and the government rebated a further 2% of triactor wagering tax moneys back to the horsemen. This net 2.4% rebate to purses has been a boon to our industry and a blessing for our membership.

"Bill 130, as it currently reads, will eliminate this rebate. This would immediately result in an $8-million loss to thoroughbred horses and a further loss of $3 million in breeders' initiatives. As such, the HBPA of Ontario cannot support this bill in its present language.

"While the HBPA has been supportive of an industry-wide petition to government to reduce the tax on parimutuel wagering, it has always been our belief the present industry initiative programs must be maintained. Mr Eves's Bill 130 does not allow for this."

In fact, also a letter from the Ontario Harness Horse Association states in part:

"The Ontario Harness Horse Association is of the understanding that Bill 130 is receiving second reading in the House on June 2, 1994. The OHHA wishes to point out that it cannot support this bill as it currently is worded."

Again, the organization would like to go on record as supporting a bill which would reduce the government's tax on the mutuel handling in Ontario. However, the bill would have to be worded in such a way as to ensure that sufficient taxes were retained so that the 2.4% government tax purse rebate to the horsemen throughout Ontario was indeed left intact. In fact, if this bill was ever to become law, most of the small horse racing tracks in this province would indeed be closed. The only people who would benefit from this particular bill would be the big boys such as the OJC and their tracks.

First of all, I would now like to talk a little bit about what our ministry has been doing to the horse racing industry in this province. As many of you know, the horse racing industry and the breeding industry in Ontario is a very important sector in this province's economy. Horse racing in Ontario employs thousands in a labour-intensive industry providing an estimated 30,000 jobs in this province. This government is committed to maintaining a viable horse breeding and racing industry that continues to create jobs and contribute to the financial security of Ontario's agricultural community.

In the current economic climate government programs across the board are facing serious cutbacks or reductions. As well, as the member for Parry Sound well knows, the government's rebate program -- again, the 2% racetracks tax-sharing agreement was one of the few major government programs that have been maintained untouched by this government. It is a clear demonstration of our continuing support for this industry.

Nevertheless, the horse racing industry continues to experience its fair share of tough economic times. In fact, there's been an appreciable impact on horse racing over the years with the introduction of lotteries as well as increased charitable gaming activities. Because of this increasingly competitive gaming environment, in November 1993 the Ontario government brought together groups representing various interests in the horse racing and breeding industry to help it develop an industry vision and short-term and long-term strategies to ensure that vision over the coming years.

By engaging in a sectoral strategy, all partners are committed to designing a strategy and work plan to ensure a viable and economically sound horse racing and breeding industry in the province, an industry that will be able to compete more effectively with other forms of entertainment. These groups within the industry have the knowledge and expertise about breeding and racing horses and the environment that is required to conduct this business very successfully. The government has the expertise to contribute to the partnership and we have a strong will to see the industry prosper and improve.

Over the past several months our ministry had the opportunity to meet and consult with a large number of stakeholders in this industry. Key players in the partnership include standardbred and thoroughbred breeders, owners, racetrack owners, managers and many other groups that have the long-term health of this industry at heart.

They have been assisted in their efforts by staff in the ministries of CCR, Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and Economic Development and Trade. Since February of this year, there have been three general workshops with the partners and a number of working group meetings. Tremendous gains have already been made and more are expected shortly.

As the ministry responsible for regulating the horse racing and breeding industry, we are proud, and proud of this government's record of supporting the industry in Ontario. We will continue to work to keep this industry viable and protect the jobs of tens of thousands of Ontario workers and we will do this through our continued participation with our partners in developing a very successful sector strategy.

As the member for Parry Sound pointed out, he indeed was correct when he talked about the 25% tax on the amount bet in the casino, but what he failed to mention was that we also tax revenues at the rate of 20%, so it's like comparing apples and oranges. We also assist the racetracks, which we don't do in the casino industry.

Again, in conclusion, in our continued efforts of cooperation and partnership in this very important sectoral partnership we look forward to the support from the member for Parry Sound.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I wish to rise in support of the bill put forward by the member for Parry Sound, because I think it's a bill that will assist an industry which is experiencing great difficulty at this time of June 1994.

Mr Eves and other speakers have mentioned on a number of occasions the importance of the horse racing industry to the province of Ontario. It's an existing industry, it has been there for a long time and it has some considerable history. I would like to review for members of the House some of the facts about its economic significance to this province.

I appreciate that Mr Eves provided some research on this by consulting various people in the industry and people associated with the industry, and I certainly support the bill, which proposes to reduce the effective tax rate on parimutuel betting to 0.5%.

The member, as have other members, has pointed out that at one time this was essentially the only game in town in Ontario. The only significant betting that could take place was betting at a racetrack. That has changed considerably today; we have all kinds of lotteries. I can't even keep up with the lotteries they have any more and don't understand half of the lotteries they have in existence in this province, but I know that they bring in millions upon millions of dollars to the coffers of the province of Ontario, and I guess some prize money to people who are fortunate enough to beat the almost impossible odds and win.

The fact, however, is that in June 1994 we're in a different circumstance. The horse racing industry does have a lot of competition. The new one, beyond the lotteries now, of course, is casino gambling, something that I have spoken out against on many occasions. The member for Parry Sound and I have a mutual viewpoint, I think, on casino gambling. I have directed some questions to the government in this regard.

I'm not convinced that all of his colleagues or all of my colleagues necessarily agree with everything we say about casino gambling, but I must say, from the questions he's asked and the views I've expressed, I think we're of one opinion on the effect of casino gambling. It is having, and is going to have, a pretty devastating effect on the horse racing industry, which is why it's going to require the kind of legislation which is proposed in this particular bill.

I should, on a parochial basis but certainly a justified parochial basis, talk about the future of Fort Erie Race Track. Fort Erie Race Track has been the subject of some considerable discussion, both in private and in public, as to its viability and its future.

Just as the member has mentioned, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has estimated that the industry contributes $350 million annually to the agriculture industry in Ontario, that is, horse racing and looking after the horses, and that this figure does not include the $2.2 billion of economic activity generated by veterinary services, farm equipment, transportation, rural-municipal taxes and salaries and wages. That's significant.

But if we can bring it down to the situation of Fort Erie, the estimation that I have -- and the members from the Niagara Peninsula met on this in June 1992, the time we sat around the table with municipal representatives and talked about the importance of Fort Erie and the vulnerability of Fort Erie at that particular time to a closing proposal -- is that upwards of 4,000 jobs depend on Fort Erie remaining open. Those were either directly or indirectly, and the member has appropriately pointed out how that exists.

The fact as well is that many of the people who work in this industry might have difficulty finding other employment. One of the options would be social assistance. But the opportunity to work in the horse racing industry, in jobs that aren't necessarily all that glamorous but are nevertheless important, the importance of having that dignity of work cannot be underestimated for those who are employed in the industry, because many might then have to seek social assistance. That is a cost to society but it's a cost as well to the dignity of the people who have an opportunity today to work in this industry.

1040

Fort Erie is again under some cloud in that there have been stories in the news media that its viability is in question. I don't think that's necessarily the case and it doesn't have to be the case. I know the political representatives in the Niagara region speak as a unit in wanting to see Fort Erie continue to exist and to play the significant role it does.

Fort Erie Race Track provides an opportunity to have a job for, as I mentioned, many individuals who might not have another job. It attracts tourists from New York state, tourists who spend their money in Ontario, and it abates the problem with cross-border shopping which has existed in some of the border areas.

I notice that this government has moved on many occasions when the people or the business affected are high profile, well-paid and significant in numbers, and I think there would be support for that on many of those occasions. I think it is equally important that the government endeavour to assist the horse racing industry, which is under threat today.

The town of Fort Erie, as part of the Niagara region, has experienced significant unemployment. The Niagara region consistently in the last few years has been among the highest, in terms of a geographic area, with the rate of unemployment. It's called the St Catharines-Niagara Report -- that's the way it's listed by the federal government -- and on a number of occasions it has in fact been the highest in the land, certainly the highest in the province. This is not a record we're happy about in the Niagara region and we would deplore the possibility of Fort Erie Race Track closing and another 4,000 jobs being affected by that potential closing. So its significance to the Niagara region cannot be diminished.

I won't get sidetracked, though I'm always tempted to get sidetracked into casino debates and the effect of casino gambling on a lot of things. Particularly with you in the chair, Madam Speaker, being from Niagara Falls, I'll resist that temptation I always have to get involved in casino gambling debates on virtually every occasion. I think this bill offers some hope to the horse racing industry. The bill is timely, timely because the horse racing industry is facing a great challenge out there, timely because it is no longer the only game in town.

I will divert a bit, within the context of this debate, to a viewpoint on offtrack betting, which is not necessarily held by even some of my friends who may wish to indulge. I've heard it said that offtrack betting is supposed to help the horse racing industry. Well, I don't know about that. Perhaps there are experts who say it does. I think it provides yet another opportunity for people to spend their money in a less productive way than they might otherwise spend it. I wish it were being spent on services being provided by people. I wish it were being spent on manufactured goods, such as vehicles that we produce in St Catharines or other things that are required within the household that could produce what I call excellent jobs out there for people, well-paying jobs, and there's something tangible at the end which is useful to the person other than a ticket stomped on the floor afterwards.

I think this industry is going to be important. I wrote a letter at one time to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about an issue of this kind, and in the context of the competition that's out there, I think the proposal made within this bill to reduce the effective tax rate on parimutuel betting to 0.5% is a reasonable one.

If the government is concerned about the economic ramifications of this, I think it will find that in the long run it'll probably receive more revenue doing this than it would if we have racetrack after racetrack in this province closing, where we have essentially offtrack betting coming from New York state or from some other place where people can go into a restaurant or a bar and do their betting and not have to go to a racetrack, not have to be part of the horse racing industry in Ontario.

As private members, voting the way I know they are permitted to do in this debate this morning, that is, as independently as possible -- I know the cabinet has a collective view from time to time on matters of significance, and I understand that, but I hope members will indicate support for this bill this morning. It doesn't mean it's going to pass. I often see the material that's sent out to constituents after an issue in private members' hour, and it looks as though the bill has passed and away we go. That's not the case.

But the passing of this bill today would at least give a signal to the Minister of Finance of this province and to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that this industry and racetracks such as Fort Erie require assistance and that this is one way they can be assisted.

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): It's a pleasure to rise today to speak in support of my colleague the member for Parry Sound's private member's Bill 130, An Act to amend the Race Tracks Tax Act.

As has been mentioned by previous speakers from St Catharines and Brant-Haldimand and my friend and colleague from Simcoe East, harness racing and thoroughbred racing, the horse industry in Ontario, has a long history and a great tradition in this province. As has been mentioned, the horse industry is suffering economic woes, and it seems to be exacerbated by the problems this government has inflicted upon it with the legalization of casinos in Windsor.

The present tax rate on triactor bets at 9%, and 7% on all other bets, is unrealistic given today's climate of taxes in the rest of North America and given the history of how that tax rate was set up. It arrived when horse racing at the tracks in Ontario was the only game in town. Today, there is a host of other ways people can wager.

As I mentioned before, the horse racing industry is a cultural thing for rural Ontario and for many Ontarians. They're not asking for cultural handout grants from the province. They're asking for a competitive level playing field so they can support their industry in a way that is marketplace-driven but also recognizes the history and the culture and the tradition of horse racing in Ontario. As far back as Dan Patch in the early 1900s, Ontario's been recognized for its excellence in the horse industry. That's the one side of it, the cultural side.

The other side of why the horse industry needs support from this present government is that it's a fact that it has a huge economic impact on all of Ontario and especially rural Ontario. It's responsible for up to 50,000 jobs in this province. That's a large industry. Direct and indirect spinoffs in agriculture are $350 million of hay and straw and local services provided, and it's almost $2 billion in total economic spinoff by the time you take the direct and indirect consequences of the 19 tracks in Ontario spread around most of rural Ontario.

What annoys me is that the government wouldn't recognize that this industry needs a level playing field. They would rather keep on with the rebate system where people have to go on bended knee year after year to get money from the Ontario government to support a legitimate industry in Ontario. Why not allow it to be in place like this bill calls for? It's common sense. It lowers the rate of taxation and allows more money to be in those people's hands so they can make the decisions about how it's to be spent.

I want to point out that the racetracks alone pay property tax in Ontario of $10 million. These are property taxes to rural communities to provide for local services. If you take this away and have all the money go through the casinos, it goes directly to the general revenue fund of the Ontario government and these communities have to come to the government and ask for grants to provide these local services. At a time when there's economic hardship and it's being said that we can't spend money everywhere, for the social agenda changes there seems to be lots of money.

1050

I would also like to thank the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Agriculture and Horse Racing Coalition for making people of Ontario aware of how large an industry horse racing is and what an impact it has on rural Ontario and all of Ontario.

In summation, I don't want to repeat what the other members have said in support of this bill, so I'll keep my comments rather brief. I speak in support of the member for Parry Sound's private bill because it makes sense. It might not be the be-all and end-all, but it's a small step and an important step to helping a very important industry in Ontario, a cultural industry and an industry that has great economic benefits. If it goes against the philosophy that everyone should have to come to the Ontario government to ask for a handout, then so be it.

It's time that rural Ontario had some money left in rural Ontario. These rules were set up when it was the only game in town. The reality's changed now. There's all kinds of forms of betting where the money goes directly to the province and doesn't stay in these rural communities. This is one area where we can help this industry and help correct a situation that's long outlived its necessity.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm certainly pleased to see the member for Parry Sound back in the House after his unceremonious departure yesterday. He certainly went down in defence of his leader, and that was not unnoticed on the CBC Radio news I listened to this morning. Someone's got to defend the leader of the third party. The Common Sense Revolution booklet has certainly been a bit of a snooze.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We are here to discuss Bill 130.

Mr Winninger: Certainly. I was just moving towards my subject, Madam Speaker. The Common Sense Revolution booklet is certainly an important contextual backdrop for the bill the member for Parry Sound brings to the House today. While some of the economic bromides in the Common Sense Revolution booklet have put many people to sleep, perhaps never to wake up, those professional economists who have read through the document have been universal, as I read it, in disclaiming any validity in that particular document. I think it provides a good contextual backdrop to today's discussions.

The reduction of the tax under the Race Tracks Tax Act would I think be the coup de grâce for the racetrack industry in Ontario, because what it would do is effectively close down the majority of small racetracks and allow perhaps two or three of the larger racetracks to remain open, so I find it very counterproductive.

I don't disagree with many of the remarks of the member for Victoria-Haliburton. Certainly there are tremendous challenges the racetrack industry is facing. I've had extensive correspondence with Mr McRae, the general manager of the Western Fair Association in London -- we do have a racing operation there -- as well as Glen Brown, the chair of the Ontario Agriculture and Horse Racing Coalition. Through this correspondence, I've had an opportunity to do a little research into the industry.

I agree that it does in fact provide jobs to a great number of people. The last number I had was 28,000 people employed in racing, people who train and groom horses, people who work at the racetracks, people who work in the grain and feed industry who service that particular industry.

It would be of great concern to me if the tax were reduced, as the member for Parry Sound would have it, because that would totally wipe out the $30 million and upwards that's rebated back to the industry. I might add that the lion's share of that $30 million probably goes to the smaller racetracks, because they're in the most need. By essentially wiping out that tax and the rebate, I'd have very great concerns, particularly because Agriculture Canada, as I understand it, permits the racetracks to retain only 18 cents on every dollar.

I'm confident they're at the maximum now, so I see absolutely no value in this bill and I will be opposing it.

The Acting Speaker: Is there any further debate? If not, the member for Parry Sound has two minutes to respond.

Mr Eves: I believe I have four minutes and 20 seconds.

The Acting Speaker: Plus some other time. Thank you.

Mr Eves: Having heard a few other members partake in the debate -- and I thank members on all side of the House who have participated in the debate -- I am somewhat at a loss to understand the concern about not removing $70 million a year out of the horse racing industry.

Right now, the province takes $75 million a year in tax, in round figures, out of the industry. They return roughly $25 million. The province nets $50 million.

If I understand it correctly, you're saying you would rather have a $25-million handout than $75 million which you can distribute internally among various groups in the horse racing industry. You don't think they are capable of doing that? Is that what you're telling me, that Big Brother has to do everything for everybody in society?

If somebody comes to me when I am making $25,000 a year on social assistance and says, "We're going to give you a $75,000-a-year job," am I going to say, "No, I don't want it because I'd rather have the $25,000-a-year handout"? That's the message I'm getting from what the members of the government have said here today.

I would like to point out to the members who have spoken on this issue and again to the two associations they talk about -- which, I might add, they neglected to mention are only two out of nine. Seven out of nine in the Ontario Agriculture and Horse Racing Coalition group are in favour of this bill. Two out of nine, I believe somewhat misguidedly, are against it because they believe their rebate is in the act. It isn't in this act. Here's the entire act with every regulation attached. If the rebate program is in this act, I'll eat it. If it isn't, I want the members who speak in favour of it to eat the bill, because it isn't in here.

Mr Winninger: Yours wouldn't be either.

Mr Eves: No, mine wouldn't be either. That's the point: It is not in the act. The way the industry gets its money back is by order in council every year by the cabinet. That's how they get their money. It's not in the act and it's not in the regulations under the act. These two groups, with all due respect, don't seem to understand that. It isn't in my bill; it isn't in the original act that we're working under now.

It doesn't make any sense to me, the argument they're using. They're telling me they don't want $75 million a year; they want a $25-million handout instead. "Don't give us the $75 million. What would we do with the extra $50 million?" I don't see how that's benefiting the horse racing industry.

I might add that the overwhelming majority of the people in the coalition fully support this bill. And if not this bill, I say to the government in all honesty, and I said this when I introduced the bill, and I said this during Bill 8 hearings, and members who were present know I've been consistent on this -- I've said it to the minister several times; I've asked her questions in the House. I introduced the bill in December, and here we are six months later and the government has taken no action to protect the horse racing industry with the advent of casino gambling and all the other forms of gambling that this government and other governments have introduced into Ontario society. I say, then bring forward your own bill with what you think is a fair and effective reduction of taxation rate, because I tell you, if you don't, you're going to put this industry out of business.

I say to the 27 rural New Democratic Party members who were elected in 1990 that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture fully supports this bill, so you'd better decide when you vote here today whether you're supporting Frank Drea, the newly converted socialist, as I now hear it in the Legislature this morning, or you're going to support the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, because that's your choice.

1100

The other member groups --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Time is up.

Mr McLean: You've got two minutes.

Mr Eves: I believe I have two minutes left, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

The other member groups in the Ontario Agriculture and Horse Racing Coalition consist of the Canadian Standardbred Horse Society, the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society, the Canadian Trotting Association, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Racetracks Canada Inc, Standardbred Breeders and Owners Association, and Women in Harness Racing. Those groups are fully in favour of Bill 130.

The two that are not are the two that have been mentioned by a couple of government members, the Horseman's Benevolent and Protective Association and the Ontario Harness Horsemen's Association. I say, with all respect, to those two groups, I believe they're somewhat misguided in their conclusion because Mr Drea seems to have convinced them that it's better to receive a $25-million handout at the discretion of whoever's in power every year by order in council. Some government may decide not to give them a cent. There's no guarantee in the existing legislation. They'd rather rely on that handout year after year than getting the $75 million to start with. I don't understand that thinking.

I also would like to point out that Coopers and Lybrand, during the Bill 8 hearings, when I asked the question: Don't you think it's time we amended this tax and reduced it? The answer I got from Coopers and Lybrand in committee was: "In terms of the parimutuel tax, when the tax was conceived, horse racing really benefited from somewhat of a monopoly environment. You didn't have the same extent of lottery ticket purchases and casinos were out of everybody's mind. So maybe it is time to consider modifying the tax."

That's what I'm asking the government to do today. I've been asking the government to do it consistently for at least a year now, and I would like some action to be taken. The agricultural community in this province is 100% behind me.

The Acting Speaker: Time for discussion of second reading of Bill 130 has expired. A vote will take place at 12 noon.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Sola moved private member's notice of motion number 42:

That, in the opinion of this House, consumers in Ontario are in need of greater protection against sellers or lenders who make false, misleading or deceptive representations or innocent misrepresentations than is currently provided for in consumer protection legislation such as the Business Practices Act and the Consumer Protection Act; and that to the extent to which existing legislation does offer a degree of protection to the consumer, such provisions should be more vigorously enforced; therefore the government of Ontario should establish a select committee of this House to review existing consumer protection legislation so as to provide consumers with an improved comprehensive protection program.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr Sola has moved private member's resolution number 42. He now has 10 minutes for his discussion of this matter and then we will discuss it in rotation.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): First of all, I'd like to thank the office of the legislative counsel, particularly Howard Goldstein and Betsy Baldwin, for their research and help in drafting this resolution.

As you can see, my resolution is stated in pretty general terms. It is a broad statement intended to cover as wide an area as possible. I did this intentionally so that I would not run into the same problems as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt with his bill to protect consumers from fraudulent loan brokers. He was criticized that his bill misses the mark and needs to be rewritten.

My original intent was to formulate a bill to discontinue the so-called "buyer beware" attitude prevalent in society today. I wanted to set the tone for an ethical business practice plan and to concentrate on the concept of honesty in business, to which most of our businesses in the community adhere anyway.

In this day and age, the world is too complex for the buyer to be an expert on everything: on law, insurance, real estate, automobiles etc, even if he or she reads the fine print.

The wide scope also allows me sufficient space to home in on a horror story in my own riding of Mississauga East which has carbon copies in many other ridings. The case of the homes built on radioactive soil in Scarborough comes to mind, as do the farms which were used as disposal sites for asphalt, resulting in contaminated groundwater affecting milk production and livestock.

The case I'm speaking about is Clifford and Isoline Armstrong, whom I first met on February 15 of this year. I inspected their home at their request at 3145 Nawbrook Drive, because they did not believe that I would be able to understand their grievances unless I actually saw them first hand.

After inspecting their home, I wrote a letter to the Honourable Marilyn Churley, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and part of it I want to read into the record. This is my observation after having seen the home:

"His home is sinking, tilting, cracking and threatening to become a heap of rubble. Some cracks in his brick walls are one and a half inches wide." That was then. I visited the place last week and those cracks have now increased to two inches. "The basement has sunk up to a foot in spots, and a new one had to be laid below the furnace to prevent it from hanging six inches above the original floor." Prior to my coming there, it had been hanging by the natural gas pipe, nothing else supporting the furnace. As of last week, that six-inch addition had sunk enough so that you could put your hand under the furnace. "Mr Armstrong's front door, bathroom door and garage door are almost impossible to open because of the lopsided tilt of the house."

This was the letter I wrote on February 15. Subsequent to that, on March 2, I followed it up after having received a letter from the Armstrongs, who happen to be in the gallery, which gave a complete and detailed outline of all the problems that they had encountered, complete with construction plans, surveys and technical reports.

Now I want to read some of the observations from those technical reports, because it is important for us to realize how bad the situation is. They hired consultants to analyse the situation, and here are some of the reports from those consultants:

"The 16 piles on lot 93," which the Armstrongs bought, "were installed...in April 1984. They appear to have been driven to a depth of approximately 20 feet. I note from the pile layout plan that one pile appears to be missing at the west side of the home, immediately behind the garage. This is the location where major structural damage to exterior walls has been observed." That's one report.

The second report says: "The basement plan shown does not represent the Armstrong home. For example, the as-built home is approximately 26 feet, four inches by 37 feet, eight inches, rather than 31 feet, six inches by 32 feet, 11 inches as shown. Further, the two piers in the centre of the basement are not in the location as shown."

A further observation: "The brickwork along the west side of the garage exhibits step cracking in excess of five millimetres (one quarter of an inch) in width." That was in 1993. When I visited there last week, some of those cracks were about two inches wide. "The powder room window frame has been dislodged from the masonry wall, exposing the interior of the wall to rain..." and that is at least a two-inch crack. "The garage door frame has also been twisted within the masonry opening. It appears that the northwest corner of the garage has moved downward by approximately 75 millimetres (three inches)...." That has sunk even further since then.

"The report confirms that the basement floor slab has been placed on poorly consolidated fills containing compressible organic materials. These types of soils are not considered suitable for supporting structural loads without the use of special design and construction procedures."

Some other findings: "As such it is clear that the developer of the land, home builder, and the city of Mississauga knew that this home was constructed on landfill. As such they had obligation under the requirements of the Ontario Building Code to ensure that the home was constructed so as to ensure that the observed structural settlement did not occur."

1110

They summarized: "In summary, the Ontario Building Code clearly describes the design method for correctly constructing a foundation and basement floor slab level of this home. It appears, however, that these procedures were not followed; otherwise the observed major structural damage would not have occurred."

I want to point out that in some reports this home is stated to have been built on a former landfill site; in other reports, on a former quarry. Whatever; it is built on fill, and that situation is covered by Ontario law.

The conclusion of the consultant's report stating the repairs that are necessary to make the Armstrongs' home livable is as follows. There are 11 different points made:

" -- Demolition and removal of the wall finishes within the basement.

" -- Removal of the furnace, hot water heater and related services. This will require moving the occupants to temporary accommodations.

" -- Removal of concrete floor slab.

" -- Drilling of special piles within the basement to support the future floor.

" -- Construction of new structural concrete slabs supported by the piles.

" -- Reconstruction of basement finishes following the installation of services.

" -- Removal of exterior brick veneer around the garage.

" -- Driving of new piles and construction of transfer beams below foundations of garage.

" -- Jacking of the garage foundations to the original grade.

" -- Replace brick masonry.

" -- Reinstate exterior landscaping."

The total cost of the construction of these 11 points would be approximately $82,000. Engineering design, inspection and testing fees would jack that up to approximately $100,000.

What I want to point out is that the Armstrongs bought this home in good faith. The site is covered by the Ontario Building Code, the builder belonged to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, and the city sent inspectors to the site. Yet still the Armstrongs and their home fell between the cracks. It is necessary to fill those cracks in order to prevent similar occurrences from happening in the future.

This resolution is non-partisan, deliberately, to facilitate agreement on the necessary changes. It is unfair that individual citizens like the Armstrongs should bear the complete cost of circumstances that are beyond their control and that are the result of either legal loopholes, human mistakes or some other happenstance.

I've got some other points to make, which I will do in the two-minute summation, but I encourage everybody to be non-partisan in this regard. I think people on all sides of this House, whatever party they belong to or whether they are independent, are here for the good of the community. This is an instance where if we correct the mistakes that are there, we can prevent further instances of such occurrences happening, despite the best efforts of every level of government.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I am pleased to take part in this debate on the resolution put forward by the member for Mississauga East. When one reads the resolution, it is clear that the thrust, the intent and the hope of the member for Mississauga East is that consumer protection legislation and issues around that area are moved to a committee for discussion, and for hopeful action, so that the type of activity that took place in the situation the member brought forward would not happen in the future. Apparently, it is clear that there is the need for a greater sense of consumer protection legislation than now exists in the province.

I am well aware of the debate that took place, I guess about two or three weeks ago, on another piece of legislation, Bill 152. Madam Speaker, you will be aware that that particular piece of legislation dealt with the issue of loan brokers and the issue of deposits by people who make an application for a loan and the fact that those deposits are non-refundable. It was unfortunate that though there were many people who spoke in principle in support of the legislation that day, the government moved that bill to what is called committee of the whole. That means the government will not be bringing forward that piece of legislation, and for all intents and purposes that bill is dead, no matter how important its thrust was. It was a piece of legislation that I supported and I will be directing some of my comments to that piece of legislation in the next few moments.

I think this resolution is one which I will support. I'm speaking in support of the resolution because I think there is the need to move some of these very important issues to a committee or somewhere for discussion, to uncover the issues and how best they can be addressed.

To date, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has not dealt with this area. It is clear that the record of the government in this area, in one word, is just basically inaction. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has been primarily if not wholly concerned with gambling and casinos in the Windsor area and other areas around the province and is only concerned with fomenting more gambling in this province while leaving to the side the issue of consumer protection. I believe the people of the province require more effort by the government and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In essence, she's got to get out of the gambling casinos and into the communities and start to deal with legislation and protection for consumers in this province. To date, she and her government have not done so.

I am speaking as the member for Mississauga North. I believe this resolution should be supported, because I think there is the real need to deal with many issues around consumer protection. I get in my constituency office concerns and letters over issues such as the non-refundable deposits made by people who are applying for loans with loan brokers.

Basically, people are in desperate need of money very shortly for whatever reason, and the reasons are as vast and as broad as we wish to take the time to express, but it all boils down to people requiring a loan. They go to a broker, they fill out some papers, they put down a deposit and they expect and are given the impression that this loan is in fact going to be committed to. In other words, that paper they sign is in a few days going to be transferred and they're going to receive dollars. They find out later on that the loan application has been declined, and then when they go back to get their dollars, their deposit, they find that they can't get that back either. It puts people who are in dire financial straits in a worse position.

It is clear that the issue is in every community in this province. It is not an issue that everyone is writing about or calling about, but it is a very real issue to real people. We had the opportunity to deal with that matter three weeks ago. We have another opportunity. The setup of this committee could look at that issue. We could revive that bill which the government so quickly killed three weeks ago.

People are being hurt by the fact that they are losing their deposits, that it is not being explained fully and properly what their rights are, what the risks are. People out there are preying on individuals who happen, many without any fault of their own, to be in some very deep and dire financial straits and need some capital, some loan, very quickly.

1120

They go to these brokers. They sign the forms. They are led to believe that they have a commitment for a loan. They are led to believe that the loan dollars will be coming in the next few days. A few days later, they are told that the commitment has not been accepted, that no money is going to be coming. They come and they say: "I gave you a deposit when I signed that paper. May I have that back?" The answer to that is no. We know that this is all set up, that this whole situation is set up specifically to prey on people who make, in good conscience, in good faith, loan applications but need the funds very rapidly for an emergency purpose.

It is issues such as that, issues that I receive in my constituency office, telephone calls and letters, that we can deal with. We could have dealt with the specific issue three weeks ago, but the government nixed that. We have another opportunity to deal with this issue if we accept this resolution and set up a committee.

It will be interesting to see whether the government is committed to do that. They may be able to speak in support, but I want to see a real and firm commitment that the committee indicated in this resolution will in fact be set up, so that these very real issues will be dealt with and so that the people who are badly, badly hurt will have a remedy. It will be interesting to see what the government's commitment is and whether it will, for the very short period of time, get itself out of the gambling casinos and into the communities and help people who desperately need some legislative assistance.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity once again to put some comments on the record with regard to the resolution that's been brought forward by my colleague the member for Mississauga East. This resolution notes, "Consumers in Ontario are in need of greater protection against sellers or lenders who make false, misleading or deceptive representatives or innocent misrepresentations...."

As well as the existing legislation, like the Business Practices Act or the Consumer Protection Act, it does not offer appropriate protection to the consumer, and that's why he has brought this bill in, so that we could have a select committee of this House to review existing consumer protection legislation and to provide Ontario consumers with an improved, comprehensive protection program.

I commend the member for Mississauga East for bringing this resolution forward. The people of Ontario, those on fixed incomes and those who have worked long and hard to make a living, are really sick and tired of those people who prey on unsuspecting consumers by using false, misleading or deceptive practices.

I support this resolution in principle, but I would urge the member to overhaul his resolution to include some form of protection for the overburdened taxpayers of the province of Ontario, some of the ones that we have seen here. There's no end to the taxes, to what's gone on.

I want to relay a couple of incidences of why I think it's important that this consumer protection bill review committee should be put in place. On some occasions I've had the New Home Warranty Program and some people came to me who have indicated that they have bought their property, there has been a crack in the basement when they moved in and they have gone through an awful time to try to get it rectified.

I know of two cases that came to me. I have been in touch with the ministry. The New Home Warranty facilitators indicated, "Yes, we will look at it, we will make the contractor put in a new wall in the basement or fix it up, whatever the case may be," and it goes on and on.

These poor people who have bought this new residence, perhaps their first home, are sitting here with a cracked basement with the water coming in, and the protection that we have today does not appear to be strong enough to make those contractors repair the facilities. I'm speaking about one that was in the Brechin area in the township of Mara at that time. It was over a year and those poor individuals still had not been satisfied with regard to the purchase. So there really is a need for consumer protection to be looked at in a broader sense.

We look at some of the consumer protection laws that we have and we often wonder, really, how do those people become protected? Look, it wasn't long ago here we were dealing with a bill in this Legislature with regard to loan sharks who would take a fee of $300 or $800 in order to get somebody a loan. Linda Leatherdale had on many occasions full pages with regard to people who were being ripped off where these individuals claimed they were going to get them a loan. It never did happen. What protection do those people have?

Mr Speaker, I believe that you yourself had a bill here not too long ago which you wanted to put in place to stop cheque- cashing operations that you felt were ripping off the public. What protection do those types of people have, that you tried to bring your bill in?

I think there is a need for an overhaul. When we look at the real legacy of this administration, I would hope that they would consider some of the issues that have been brought before them here by the member for Mississauga East.

This consumer protection resolution, I think, would be a step in the right direction, but I would urge the member to give serious consideration to expanding it to include the protection of Ontario's overtaxed population. They deserve nothing less.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm very pleased to stand here today and offer some comments on the resolution put forward by the member for Mississauga East. But before I begin I would like to clear up a point that the member for Mississauga North brought up in relation to the private member's bill put forward by Mr Phillips.

The staff of our ministry has indeed met with the staff of the Ministry of Finance to review Mr Phillips's bill, basically around the whole question of loan brokers. We have found his bill to have some very serious technical problems, and that's why it was referred to the committee of the whole.

Let me begin by saying that the vast majority of Ontario businesses are indeed fair and honest and offer consumers good value for their money. If and when problems do arise, these businesses usually respond in a timely and very satisfactory manner. They know this makes good business sense.

I might also mention that any review of consumer protection legislation should include the need to use public sector resources efficiently and effectively, to work in cooperation with other marketplace participants and to look beyond legislation as the answer to all consumer problems. At the same time, we know there are indeed a few bad actors in every sector and, because of that, improvements are always possible.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has a variety of methods available to deal with these bad actors. Many of these methods are outside the confines of existing consumer legislation. For example, we seek out partnership with business and consumer representatives to look at the possibility of industry self-regulation and alternative policies that will help consumers in the marketplace.

There are indeed many consumer protection initiatives going on outside government or with government involvement that aren't based on legislation. Recent non-legislative initiatives have provided a steady stream of improvements for consumers.

One good example of this increased cooperation between government and business is the recent creation of a standard, plain package contract for car purchases. Making it easier for consumers to understand what they're signing can save a lot of potential grief and a lot of dollars down the road.

1130

Another recent cooperative effort is the introduction this past spring of Camvap -- that's the Canadian motor vehicle arbitration program -- to help resolve consumer disputes over new car purchases. Camvap is an improved interprovincial version of the OMVAP that has existed here in Ontario for eight years.

Ontario's used car buyers are also better protected now as a result of the cooperation of three ministries. That's MCCR, Transportation and Finance. Together we've created UVIP -- that's the used vehicle information package -- to help buyers and sellers of used vehicles understand their rights and indeed their responsibilities.

For the past eight months anyone selling a used car, van, light truck, motor home or motorcycle in the province must buy this package and give it to the buyer. The package provides potential buyers with accurate and crucial information about a vehicle's registration and, most importantly, lien history before they make that final decision to purchase. It also discusses retail sales tax and other frequently asked questions regarding buying a used vehicle. As well, it makes a big dent in curbsiders' ability to do business. As you know, curbsiders are unregistered car dealers posing as private sellers.

On the enforcement front, recently our ministry has been aggressively attacking the problem of curbsiding. Since this was a serious problem in the past affecting many consumers, we are very determined indeed to address this problem. People who buy used cars from curbsiders usually don't benefit from the protection they would normally have. Had they gone to a registered dealer, they indeed would have this protection. As well, the characteristics and history of a vehicle can indeed be misrepresented, and buyers can track down the seller if they need to go after that fact.

In 1993 we undertook 219 investigations into curbsiding. The combined activities of the three ministries in addressing this issue on behalf of the consumer have significantly reduced the problem. We try to be proactive wherever possible to help prevent problems for consumers by issuing consumer alerts in potential problem areas, producing pamphlets on a variety of consumer topics, and through our 24-hour, province-wide, bilingual consumer information voice-processing system. More than 325,000 people a year take advantage of our 1-800 telephone service for information and assistance. Recently we announced that this service will be expanded with the addition of two more telephone lines.

Of course, the advice and protection MCCR offers is in addition to the consumer service policies and good practices of many manufacturers, retailers and service providers. MCCR is involved in many other partnerships that ultimately help protect consumers in the marketplace, including those that increase enforcement effectiveness and help deter scam artists and fraudulent businesses.

The ministry has also been working with the Canadian Franchise Association to encourage its efforts to improve cooperation between franchisers and franchisees and to develop a code of best practice that reflects both groups' needs. In yet another consumer area, the Ontario Provincial Police Project Phonebusters has been targeting telemarketing fraud for the past few years, with assistance from several sources including MCCR.

Perhaps most importantly, there are many ways consumers can help themselves, often with faster results. For example, the increased Small Claims Court limits provide consumers with greater access to this low-cost dispute settlement mechanism. Through Small Claims Court, people can take steps to resolve disputes with uncooperative businesses without having to rely on government intervention.

When consumers are unable to solve a problem directly with a given business, as a last resort they often turn to the consumer ministry for help. We review the claim and options with the parties and, if appropriate, offer to mediate. Should our staff discover during an investigation a perceived breach of any of the ministry's consumer protection statutes, prosecution may result.

To give you an idea of just how effective our enforcement area is at any given time, we have approximately 200 investigations under way. During the course of a year, we resolve close to 600 cases. Some of these investigations are indeed highly complex and may take up to two years to complete. As well, as much as $1 million in consumer moneys can be at stake.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations focuses on delivering consumer protection as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible in a time of fiscal restraint. Not surprisingly, we are most active in the most problematic areas, those involving some of the biggest purchases consumers can make. These include such big-ticket items as homes, cars and vacations.

In the area of vacations, for instance, we recently changed the Travel Industry Act regulations to make sure consumers know exactly what they're getting into when they pay for travel services. Travel agencies and wholesalers now have to provide more complete information in their advertising, such as the full price of a vacation package.

I feel our major consumer protection and regulatory legislation -- the Consumer Protection Act, the Business Practices Act, the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and the Travel Industry Act -- is indeed very effective and very well enforced.

Let me conclude by stating that the Ontario consumer protection programs are continually reviewed and indeed improved. In light of this, establishing a select committee of the House to review existing consumer protection legislation would not be an appropriate or necessary use of public dollars. Indeed, we will not be supporting the resolution put forward by the member for Mississauga East.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's a pleasure to rise and join in supporting this resolution. The member who last spoke said there's no need for a select committee. I would dispute that.

Consumerism in this province and the laws that regulate it were really geared towards a province that has much changed over the years. Ontario, and perhaps Canada, for that matter, has become very much multicultural, where people have come here from other countries and become citizens or settled in Ontario and their first language is not English.

I suggest that this makes it much easier for those business people -- and I'm speaking not of the reputable businessmen, but the fly-by-nights, the quick-buck artists, and there seem to be a lot more of those these days because of the downturn in the economy -- who can take tremendous advantage of people whose first language is not English.

They can also take advantage of seniors. I'm not for one minute suggesting that seniors do not have the ability to make decisions, but I'm suggesting that very often seniors can be approached by a business practice that may appeal to their heartstrings, and we all know that seniors, at least the seniors I know, have very significant concerns about young people and about good projects that will help young people and people who are physically challenged.

I suggest to you that the Ontario landscape has changed, and a select committee is the best way to hear from groups as to the various devices and various tricks they've fallen prey to.

It's interesting that when one reads the Star Probe, they seem to have at least four or five cases, and I'm sure that's only a few of the many they've got in their reports, and they seem to be able to resolve them. What they do is expose these people, some of them, to the light of day and the publicity, and these people are decisive to make changes and to grant fairness to the individual. We see things like Goldhawk on CFTO; he has been very successful as well. It's amazing how letting light on a problem can have an instant effect in terms of solving that problem.

I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that my colleague's resolution today that we have a select committee of this Legislature look at the whole issue of consumerism, the whole issue of consumerism against a background, as I said, of a changing Ontario, against the background of the information highway we're in, and we're ever travelling further down the line, is absolutely essential.

1140

I'll give you a couple of examples. I had a constituent who called me up and said she had been approached by a vacuum cleaner company. The vacuum cleaner company apparently was sponsored by Pollution Probe, and the reason it was sponsored by Pollution Probe was that when you used it, it didn't leave any dust behind. The people invited this person to their home. First of all, it was set for 9 o'clock; the person didn't show up until about midnight. He showed up and did the demonstration. They decided the price that was being asked was Cadillac and the Volkswagen was going to do quite nicely.

The lure to get into the house was that they would be able to take a trip to some exotic place for free. The hook to that was that you had to send $10 to this agency and it would then send you back the coupons to exchange for the trip. Guess what? The demonstration was held, the item was given, the $10 was sent. They never heard from the people the $10 was sent to. In fact, they don't even have an address on the coupon you retain to be able to find out who they are or where they are. I find that very interesting, and that's just an example of how people today can make a quick buck in the market by dazzling you with footwork.

Another recent one that was received by a constituent of mine promised trips to Fort Lauderdale, Hawaii and other places. If you read through the fine print with a magnifying glass, you'd find that if you started making payments and didn't make them all, all of the money you'd paid up to that point was forfeited. That, to me, is a sharp practice and that's something that should be reviewed.

In my view, there should be a mechanism for a swift review of every contract rather than this circuitous process you have to go through, forcing people to go into our courts to enforce these obligations and, by the time they get there, finding that the person they're trying to get their money back from has disappeared.

I suggest our courts are far too overloaded. There has to be a mechanism that keeps up with the approach of the 21st century. That's why I suggest that it is imperative, and it would probably be more useful than some of the debates we have in this House and some of the things we are currently involved in, to set up a select committee and deal with this in order to protect the citizens of this fine province along the lines of the changing face of Ontario and ensure they don't have to rely on Mr Goldhawk, even though he does a good job, and Star Probe; that in fact they can get equity from the government of the day, which they're paying big dollars to, to ensure they're protected.

I just came downstairs from public accounts on Houselink. We're looking at dollars just having flowed out of this province with a devil-may-care attitude and nobody with their finger on the clutch. I find it interesting that a New Democratic Party government that says it's democratic would not be interested in having a select committee look into this issue to ensure fairness to the people in this province.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I was really disappointed to hear the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations say that they would not support this resolution.

I have been, as you know, a member of this Legislature for some 17 years now. Over a long period of time you start to look at things in a longer time frame. I have been a little concerned over the last 10 or 11 years -- and I don't want to make this particular to any one party -- that there seems to be a lack of thrust in terms of looking to the consumer and protection of the consumer.

We have done precious little in this Legislature to deal with consumer legislation. I know you, Mr Speaker, have had a bill in front of this Legislature to protect the very poorest of our consumers in dealing with the cashing of cheques. A welfare recipient is getting ripped off to the tune of 3% or 4%, I believe -- it may be even higher than that -- to cash a government cheque. What a huge rate of interest for the very poorest people in our society to pay.

We have not done anything about that. We seem to sit back and not move on any of these consumer matters, where there's a clear indication that there is a role for government to set forward clear, unequivocal rules to help our citizens have a more meaningful and higher standard of living by delineating certain rules.

The proposer of the resolution has referred to someone in his riding, the Armstrongs, who have had trouble with the home warranty program. I have had a similar case in my constituency, in the city of Kanata. The Twolan-Grahams purchased a town home in Kanata, and approximately five to six years after they purchased this home -- I'm not certain whether they were the first purchasers or the second purchasers; I believe they were the first -- it was discovered that their sewer line was never connected to the main sewer. In other words, the builder had run the sewer line out, but there was never a connection made.

Five or six years later, there was this horrendous odour which permeated the neighbourhood. They start digging and they discover this problem, a $20,000 problem when you add all the various kinds of costs associated with doing this afterwards. The home warranty program said: "Five years is our time limit. It's up."

What the proponent of this resolution and myself are talking about is the problem with the home warranty program. We should look at the home warranty program and say that if there's a latent defect, a defect which is hidden for a long period of time, the time-span runs from the time when it's reasonable for people to discover that there has been a defect. I think we need a forum to discuss the revamping of that legislation and the role of the home warranty program to deal with these kinds of problems.

I'll tell you one thing I have been very concerned about with regard to the remarks of the parliamentary assistant. I think the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has been so tied up in creating casinos around this province that it forgot about the consumer, really has forgotten about the consumer. That's the bottom line. They have been so wrapped up in this casino gambit, which has taken more than two and a half years to get in place, that they've really forgotten about the other functions. I understand that in terms of the political context, because there are only so many hours, the minister has so much time to put on various policy issues, and they've forgotten about the other.

I want to identify three areas in addition to the area mentioned by the proponent, the home warranty program. I think a minor adjustment could take care of people like the Armstrongs and people like the Twolan-Grahams in my constituency.

I want to talk about mutual funds, I want to talk about real property transfers, and I want to talk about franchising law. In all those three cases, we are not talking about buying a car and losing $2,000 or $3,000 or $10,000 in a transaction. We are not talking about Small Claims Court and losing $2,000 or $3,000. We are talking about the lifetime investment of some citizens of Ontario, and because we have failed as a Legislature over a whole series of governments to sit down and talk about these major investments, the major investments that people make in our province, we are leaving a number of people naked when they are making these transactions.

I heard on television this morning about Altamira Investment Services, which has been very successful in the mutual fund area. It has been discovered that they pay a large amount of commission each year, I believe $48 million worth of commissions each year, in stock transactions. That's the business they're in. I don't argue with the fact that they spend $48 million, but they have paid themselves through their own trading company $8 million of that $48 million, and some people who invest in Altamira are saying there shouldn't be any kind of vertical integration and that they shouldn't be allowed to hire another arm of their own in order to make this money.

1150

I don't know whether I agree with that, but I think the topic should be discussed and some rules should be put around what is being done with mutual funds, rules put around what mutual fund companies can or cannot do. Over the past year in particular, the past two years, thousands and thousands of people in this province have put their life's savings into mutual funds, and we have not even looked at the topic.

You would understand this, Mr Speaker, because I know you were involved, before your political life, in the financial industry. But the whole atmosphere of investing in Ontario has changed dramatically in the last two and three years, yet we sit back in the Legislature and talk about mundane things and we are leaving our citizens unprotected and we're not even considering talking about the kind of rules we should perhaps have for the mutual fund industry. Now, I don't know all the answers, because we haven't had that discussion.

The other area I want to talk about is that we've had some trouble in the recession about franchises and franchisees. There about 20 states in the United States that have franchise law, and there is federal franchise law in the United States.

I am not talking about an overregulated franchise law, but there should be some kind of basic protections for franchisees in dealing with their franchiser because of their very negative position in the negotiating part of buying a franchise.

Advertising funds, for instance, should be put in some kind of trust fund and there should be some accountability between the franchiser and the franchisee that in fact the franchiser is spending those advertising funds, which they've promised to do, on the sale of the product the franchisee is engaging in. I think we could involve ourselves in some very basic, fundamental law in that area.

The other area that I think is long overdue -- and a number of the states in the United States have this as well -- is proper disclosure on the sale of a piece of real estate. We still go by the ancient, ancient caveat emptor. In the biggest single transaction that any one of us in Ontario enters into, there is no protection for the purchaser save and except what is in the agreement of purchase and sale. There is no obligation on the vendor to tell you about a defect in property, unless you ask the question, and most purchasers don't have the sophistication to ask that question.

We seem to be more concerned about minor matters in terms of consumer and commercial protection than we are in the major transactions which the citizens of Ontario undertake. I urge the members to strike this committee, and let's sit down and talk about these major holes in our consumer protection law.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): It's a pleasure for me this morning to add my comments to those of my colleague the member for Halton North on this resolution regarding consumer protection in the province. I want to say at the outset, there is no other member I have come in contact with who has a more genuine and sincere interest in consumer issues, and they are issues he and I discuss on a regular basis throughout our time here.

I'd also like to say that for the opposition parties in this House to suggest that the government doesn't care about consumer protection or hasn't taken or doesn't take any action is just fundamentally not accurate. That's as polite a way as I can put it.

This government regularly reviews and improves its consumer protection programs to make sure they meet the needs of Ontario consumers and that they do indeed keep pace with the ever-changing marketplace, and we all know it is a changing marketplace. We do this, or attempt to do it, by working in partnership with the private sector to develop both non-legislative and legislative initiatives.

I'd like to elaborate, in my short time this morning, on an innovative program that my colleague the member for Halton North touched on, and that's the Canadian motor vehicle arbitration program. I think it's a great example of what can be achieved through cooperation between business, government and consumer groups.

Like the Ontario plan, the Canadian plan is there to help consumers with a common problem as efficiently and effectively as possible. The Canadian motor vehicle arbitration program was created in April to arbitrate disputes between consumers and vehicle manufacturers without having to use the courts. It's entirely industry-financed and voluntary, and by the end of this calendar year should be available to consumers in all provinces and territories with the exception of Quebec.

Based on what they hear at an arbitration hearing, arbitrators may award a buyback or replacement of the vehicle, repairs or reimbursement for repairs; they may also award financial compensation for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the consumer or, in some cases, find no liability on the part of the company.

Once it's fully implemented, that program should have 16 members, who will elect an 11-member board of directors, including four government representatives, four auto manufacturing representatives, one dealer and two consumer representatives. There will also be administrators across Canada to handle cases in each region and one general manager in the Toronto headquarters.

In its very short existence the program has already been well received, and we have great hopes for its success. If it follows in the Ontario program's footsteps, success is assured. In a survey done not very long ago, the customer satisfaction rate with the Ontario program, as it applied to auto arbitrations, was 86%.

As I said earlier, I really feel that this kind of program, with that kind of satisfaction rate, is a very good example of what can be accomplished when business, government and consumer groups work together. It's important for all of us in this House to remember that finding cost-effective, non-legislative solutions that help everyone makes a great deal of sense these days, and always has and always will.

I want to further state that to suggest that this government may be more consumed with the casino issue than with consumer protection is just a load of bunk. We've always been concerned about consumers. The ministry has been concerned and works very diligently with its partners and with consumer groups to look after, as best it can, the interests of all consumers. The suggestion that this government doesn't care or doesn't take any action to protect consumers is just not true.

I would commend the member for Mississauga East for bringing his resolution to the House, and the situation he refers to and the Armstrongs, who are with us today. Who wouldn't be sympathetic to that situation? But to suggest that everything can be solved and changed through legislative action in this House I think is not accurate either.

We share the concerns of the member for Mississauga East and everyone else in this House to ensure that consumers are treated fairly. We just don't think that legislation is the answer to every single situation. For that reason, I'll be joining my colleague the member for Halton North and will not be supporting the resolution.

Mr Sola: I can't believe my ears when I hear that the government members, the parliamentary assistant and the member for Sarnia, will not be supporting this resolution. This resolution was drafted in such general terms in order to avoid the criticism that was levelled at Mr Phillips's bill, which was too specific for the government. This is now too general.

The Armstrongs came to me because they said there are no places set up to go to and give their grievances. Now I bring their grievances to this House, and apparently this House is no place for their grievances as well. The Armstrongs made a legitimate purchase, a real estate deal, and now they cannot even get a mortgage on their home, the home is in such a state. It's sitting on a pit of quicksand and it is sinking into the ground.

Mr Armstrong has told me: "I cannot afford to leave the house and rent another one. I'm preparing to go down with this house." His house is like the Titanic. It's been hit by an iceberg, which is the system; the tip appears to provide protection, but the danger lurks below.

He's not blaming the builder, he's not blaming the community; he's blaming the system. He needs help now because of the additional costs he has incurred to pay his consulting engineers, to pay his property taxes and to pay his lawyers. He states, "If we, the taxpayers, have to pay lawyers because our elected officials don't want to look after us, something is wrong."

I think the attitude of this government is wrong in this instance. It really is surprising to me, because the member for Frontenac-Addington, the government whip, has been extremely supportive in this case. He's been very sympathetic and has been extremely supportive, so I don't understand the switch in the tactics of the government.

I'd like to thank all the members who spoke in support, the members for Mississauga North, Simcoe East, Brampton South and Carleton.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The time provided for private members' business has expired.

RACE TRACKS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE PARI MUTUEL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 60, standing in the name of Mr Eves. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Eves has moved second reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Race Tracks Tax Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Cleary, Crozier, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Harnick, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kormos, Marland, Morrow, North, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), Perruzza, Poirier, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remaining standing until their names are called.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Boyd, Carter, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 29; the nays are 42. I declare the motion lost.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 59, standing in the name of Mr Sola. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Sola has moved private member's resolution number 42. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

The division bells rang from 1212 to 1217.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Cleary, Crozier, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Fletcher, Frankford, Harnick, Jackson, Kormos, Marchese, Morrow, North, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), Perruzza, Poirier, Rizzo, Sola, Sterling, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Arnott, Bisson, Boyd, Carter, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), Owens, Silipo, Stockwell, Sutherland, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 24; the nays are 40. I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1220 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KATIE-LYNN BROSSEAU

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): With great sadness, I ask the House to spend a few moments to reflect on the untimely death of one of my youngest constituents.

Katie-Lynn Brosseau was only two and a half when she went missing about 11 days ago. On Monday night, the darkest fears of her family and every person in Elliot Lake became reality when the body of a child was found floating beneath a dam in the Sudbury area.

Police believe Katie-Lynn died at her father's hands and that afterwards he took his own life.

For the people of Elliot Lake, this is a tragedy that has transcended all others and it is one that has traumatized a community beset by problems in recent years. From the moment Rick Brosseau's body was found and the search for Katie-Lynn was launched, residents went into action, joining search teams and raising money to bring Mrs Brosseau's family to the community. Community, church and business groups provided food for the searchers and fashioned purple ribbons to wear in the hope that this little girl would be found alive. Katie-Lynn dominated every conversation and every thought.

Throughout this ordeal, the Elliot Lake police, the OPP, Mayor George Farkouh and his council, the local news media and everyone directly involved carried out their duties with the utmost sensitivity.

As preparations for Katie-Lynn's funeral tomorrow are being made, the Elliot Lake Family Life Centre prepares to launch counselling programs for a heartsick community.

Please join with me in extending love and sympathy to Katie-Lynn's mother, Lynn Brosseau, her grandparents and other family members and friends and to the entire community of Elliot Lake as it tries to heal from this terrible tragedy.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Today I rise to remind the people of Ontario what Bob Rae and his NDP government have done for the residents of Caledon, King, Vaughan and Pickering. June 4 is the second anniversary of the day that the Interim Waste Authority was ordered by the NDP government to find and announce 57 sites to be considered for three superdumps in their region.

This anniversary is not one that the people are celebrating, but rather they are marking time until they have the opportunity to show the NDP how they feel about the process. Residents whose lives have been in chaos since June 4, 1992, are waiting for the day they can give the NDP government a message it can't ignore. Residents who have written the Premier and his Environment, ministers only to receive no reply, will finally be heard when they throw the NDP out of office and elect a government that listens to their concerns.

This NDP government is not allowing viable alternatives, such as rail-haul and incineration, to be explored as alternatives. A Mike Harris government will allow municipalities to decide for themselves what option is the most appropriate for their community.

This NDP government is willing to see valuable farm lands be destroyed by placing dumps on existing farms. A Mike Harris government would not let that happen.

This NDP government is willing and actively participating in a plan that will threaten the environment by placing dumps on aquifers and will destroy community life by forcing residents out of their homes and away from their communities. A Mike Harris government would not let that happen.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mr Tilson: The NDP government must be made accountable for its disastrous waste management decisions. Ontario voters will ensure that happens.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise today to take part in the celebration of Italian National Day.

In a referendum on June 2, 1946, Italians chose to become a republic, ending the monarchy in Italy. In Italy, this is a national holiday and the official celebration is held in Rome. The parades and air shows are televised throughout this country. Here in Canada, celebrations are also held, usually on the first Sunday in June, and there are many events in which Canadian Italians participate.

There are more than 460,000 people of Italian heritage living in Ontario and they have made a significant contribution to the social, economic and cultural life of the province. The love of art, music, education and architecture which Italians brought with them from their native country has enriched each community in which they have chosen to live.

As you know, many early immigrants helped to build the homes and infrastructure that we all enjoy. Today the new generation is entering into all areas of community life, including political structures.

Remarks in Italian.

Today I join in celebrating Italian National Day with pride, in recognizing all who have made a contribution to our heritage.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): On June 6, Canada will be remembering D-Day, which marked the start of the Normandy invasion in France and the beginning of the end of the Second World War.

Special dedication services and activities will be held in Toronto, Sunday, June 5, to commemorate this momentous event. I would like to thank the members for Durham East and Markham for their participation in the all-party committee which assisted in the preparation of the June 6 commemoration.

Veterans will begin to assemble at 11:25 at the veterans' reception centre located at Nathan Phillips Square. At 12:15, all participating organizations will form up at Nathan Phillips Square. The parade will then begin in the direction of the cenotaph. At one o'clock, there will be a dedication and service of remembrance at the cenotaph.

This ceremony will be a tribute to the courage of our soldiers and the sacrifices they made on the battlefields 50 years ago. We will also honour the contributions of all Canadians in collective support of the war effort.

I strongly encourage Ontarians, wherever they may be, to stop on June 6 and remember: remember not just to more fully appreciate the kind of life we enjoy in Canada, but to learn the lessons of history so that indeed history need never repeat itself.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I am honoured to join with my colleagues the members from Carleton East and Durham East in commemorating the anniversary of D-Day.

Following the service at the cenotaph on Sunday, June 5, the parade will move off and march through the streets of Toronto. It will march along Queen Street to Yonge, down Yonge to Front Street, and along Front to Simcoe.

Of significant importance is Union Station, where many soldiers, sailors and air crew departed for and returned from overseas. As a symbolic gesture, the marching units will pass in review and salute as they pass the Lieutenant Governor, who will be situated in front of the entrance to Union Station. A fly-past will take place as the parade marches past Union Station.

The parade ends at Simcoe Street, at which point the marchers will board buses and be transported to Ontario Place for the ceremony at HMCS Haida.

We must remember the hundreds of thousands of veterans of the Canadian and Allied forces who fought to bring an end to the Second World War, not only on the beaches of Normandy but in Italy as well and on both the Russian and German fronts.

May everyone, young and old, honour and remember the wartime sacrifices made both overseas and at home by so many. It is because of their sacrifice that we now have a free and democratic society.

1340

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I appreciate the remarks made by my colleagues the member for Carleton East and the member for Markham, and I'd also like to make mention of the special contribution made by my colleague the member for Halton North.

All these people served on the all-party committee to facilitate this special occasion which will take place on this coming Sunday, marked with a special parade and ceremony here in Toronto.

HMCS Haida at Ontario Place plays a very significant role in this ceremony. Early in 1944, Haida joined the 10th Destroyer Flotilla operating out of Plymouth, England. The object of this mixed force of warships was to clear enemy shipping off the coast of France in anticipation of the D-Day landings. During this period Haida destroyed more enemy ships than any other ship in the Royal Canadian Navy. It was during this period that her sister ship, HMCS Athabaskan, was sunk with the loss of 128 lives. Haida is now an internationally recognized naval museum and a memorial to all Canadians who served at sea in the Second World War and in the Korean war.

I urge everyone here, everyone watching on television, to join with the Lieutenant Governor, the Premier of Ontario and thousands of veterans and their families on Sunday, June 5, at HMCS Haida, after the other parade, as we pay tribute in a special way to those who served Canada.

On behalf of my all-party colleagues and all the other members of the Legislature, I would like to take a moment to welcome Commander Bob Willson, in the members' gallery, and Lieutenant-Colonel Jeffrey Dorfman to the Legislature today. These two gentlemen are the key players in commemorating the 50th anniversary of D-Day in Toronto on June 5. I thank you for your indulgence; a little over my time.

TORY LEADER

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): There was an important person sighted several times around this Legislature these past few days. This man was none other than the new leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. We've read in the papers that the Tories are trying to keep this man away from the spotlight at Queen's Park, but we finally found him wandering the halls, looking a bit out of place, almost like he didn't belong.

This man represents a marked departure from what the Tories have had before in leadership positions. He is not Leslie Frost, he is not John Robarts and he's certainly not Bill Davis. He is also certainly not John Tory. He's no friend of Sally Barnes. He's never been a buddy of Hugh Segal, Susan Fish or Keith Norton.

He is the man who wrote the Tory election platform, commonly known as the American revolution, and he is the one who dropped it on the members of the Tory caucus' desk only 24 hours before unveiling it to the public. He is the man who told that caucus to like it or lump it.

He is the man who dropped the Tory logo, changed the party's name, jettisoned 100 years of history, all in the search for power and glory. He is the man who has encouraged them to embrace the extreme right. He is the man who we know the member for London North and the members for Markham and Willowdale are extremely comfortable taking their marching orders from.

You know him. You love him. The new leader of the Ontario Tories: Mike "I left my heart in New York City" Murphy.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The month of June is a time to recognize the many contributions to our society by Ontario seniors. I am disappointed to learn that the government of Ontario has chosen not to make a statement in the House on this important occasion on behalf of the 1.2 million Ontario seniors over the age of 65.

For that reason, I think it's fair on their behalf to remind the government of many of their needs which it has not met as a government representing seniors.

The NDP has delisted 134 slow-release drugs, many of which are required by seniors who suffer from ailments like angina and high blood pressure. It is this government that last June brought in Bill 101, which imposed and drew an additional $150 million of increased user fees for use of nursing homes and homes for the aged beds when the government quite oppositely offered and promised them in the last election. We know they are now restricting departures from nursing homes for up to 14 days or there is a new surcharge being imposed on senior citizens.

In my community of Halton, we have the lowest number of long-term care beds in all of Ontario, and many of our families are shipped out of the region because for four years there's been absolutely no increase in the total complement of chronic care beds, homes for the aged and nursing home beds.

Seniors' Month is June, and I believe Bob Rae should be reminded --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mr Jackson: -- that what is owed to the Ontario seniors is because they have worked a lifetime and have earned it.

RIDING OF PRINCE EDWARD-LENNOX-SOUTH HASTINGS

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): It's that time of the year again when summer is just around the corner, and I want to tell all the people in Ontario, because I know we have a huge viewing audience on the parliamentary channel, that they might want to come to parts of eastern Ontario, in particular Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

When you're travelling down the 401 and you come to the Wooler road, just hang a right, go south and eventually you'll get to the Loyalist Parkway, which will bring you to Prince Edward county, a very beautiful part of eastern Ontario.

If you continue along the 401, you may come to a place called Belleville -- in Mr O'Neil's riding of Quinte -- where you may observe signs that say you can take Highway 62 north, which will take you to the town of Foxboro, or you might want to take Highway 37 and go through Plainfield, stop at the cheese factory and pick up some cheese.

Or you may want to continue along, and you can continue along to Marysville, where you can turn south again, or north, but if you go south, you'll go to Prince Edward county. You'll hit a small town called Deseronto. It has a nice harbour. You can continue along to Napanee, which also has a harbour. You can also go along to Odessa, where you might want to go north to the Wilton cheese factory and pick up some fresh cheese, or you might want to go south down to meet up again with the Loyalist Parkway.

All of these towns and villages throughout my riding have access by road, most certainly, and some of them have access by water, including the town of Picton and the town of Napanee and certainly the small town of Bath. And you can't forget, the best part is some of the parks and farms we have within my constituency that will provide some of the best service to anybody who would like to visit Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With regard to the statement made by the member for Burlington South, I should just inform him that the three House leaders have reached agreement on a unanimous consent on Seniors' Day next week.

The Speaker: I appreciate the information. Statements by ministers?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock, please. The Minister of Education and Training.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Today it is my pleasure to present the Ministry of Education and Training's violence-free schools policy.

The policy addresses how school boards report incidents of violence to the police and to the ministry, how these incidents should be recorded in students' records and what elements school board violence prevention policies should contain.

Last November, I presented a series of initiatives designed to make our schools safer places to work and learn. Our government has moved quickly to meet the responsibilities to deal with violence in schools. We have taken concrete action to deal with a very difficult area. In forming our zero tolerance policy, we have consulted widely and developed a clear and consistent approach. We have laid out our expectations of how school boards and their local communities should proceed.

1350

We have covered a lot of ground since our initial announcement. On March 5, I released draft policy documents and asked for public input. In drawing up these documents, we worked with other ministries, student groups, educational representatives and the Safe School Task Force. In one of the widest-ranging consultations my ministry has ever undertaken, these policies were discussed by the people of Ontario at 18 local summits across the province. More than 3,000 people attended these summits and we received a great deal of feedback. The summit participants gave us many good ideas; we have looked at all of them in developing our final policy.

For example, many people felt that the policy needed to place greater emphasis on the problem of racism and its relationship to violence. This has been reflected in the final policy, which now lists hate-motivated violence as one of the types of incidents to be reported to the police. We have shown that we will not tolerate racism or homophobia in the schools of this province.

Feedback from the summits has also told us that our policy should emphasize prevention, so we have underlined its importance by asking that violence prevention be incorporated into all aspects of the curriculum for students from junior kindergarten to the end of secondary school. Many people felt that school board violence prevention policies should apply equally to students and staff. We have made it clear that this is the case.

While many of the views and recommendations expressed at the summits have been incorporated into the final policy document, a few others require more research before they are included. The reporting of violent incidents to the ministry will allow us to compile meaningful data on which future changes to the policy can be based.

The consultation phase of our violence prevention initiative has been most successful. Now we're going to put our policy to work. School boards must develop and revise their violence prevention policies during the 1994-95 school year and must submit them to the Ministry of Education and Training for approval by June 1995. Schools must implement the policies no later than September 1995. I expect, though, that many of Ontario's school boards will have policies up and running in their schools during the coming school year.

Policy development will be a process that should involve students, staff, parents and community partners. Schools and school boards must work to build partnerships in their communities with social agencies, with the police, with neighbours and especially with parents, who can play a very important role in creating violence-free schools.

Everyone in our communities has a responsibility to help make our schools violence-free. My ministry has faced up to that responsibility by developing the policy framework. School boards will do their part by creating and implementing their own policies which reflect the provincial initiative.

Students and parents must also recognize that they have a part to play in this process. They must be willing to shoulder their share of the responsibility. Students must realize that their actions will have consequences. Parents must instil non-violent values in their children. If their kids do get into trouble, parents should be there to help them find solutions and alternatives to violent behaviour.

As school boards begin to report violent incidents to the ministry and we gain a better understanding of what is actually happening in our schools, we will be able to further focus our violence prevention activities in the schools and in the community. But in the meantime, what really gives me hope is that people are starting to realize that violence is not someone else's problem. It's a problem for all of us and we must all deal with it.

If we keep our shared goal clearly before us, then I know that together we can control the violence in our schools and in our society.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I rise today to announce a policy statement under the Insurance Act to reduce auto insurance premiums for drivers licensed under graduated licensing.

Graduated licensing, which is being proclaimed June 6, is a two-level approach to help new drivers gain the skills to drive safely. It affects all new drivers in Ontario and involves restrictions for a minimum of 20 months.

At level 1, new drivers cannot drink any alcohol if they're going to drive, are not allowed to drive on Ontario's 400 series high-speed expressways and are prohibited from driving between midnight and 5 am. Level 1 drivers must also drive with a fully licensed driver who has at least four years of driving experience, and each person in the car must have a seatbelt.

Level 1 lasts 12 months but can be reduced to eight months if the driver successfully completes an approved driver education course.

At level 2, which lasts at least 12 months, drivers cannot drink any alcohol if they are going to drive and each person in the vehicle must have a seatbelt.

Graduated licensing is an important part of this government's integrated approach to saving lives and reducing accidents on the province's roads. A recent survey by the Ontario Insurance Commission estimates that graduated licensing will reduce accidents among first-year drivers by 10% to 20%.

While our main focus is road safety, graduated licensing will also reduce the claims cost of auto insurance companies. The Insurance Commission estimates the reduction in accidents will decrease claims by about $34 million to $40 million annually. We believe these savings should be passed on to drivers who progress successfully through graduated licensing.

Under the policy statement I'm announcing today, level 1 drivers will not be charged insurance premiums. Level 2 drivers will be rated by their insurance companies to determine the cost of their premiums. Drivers entering level 2 will receive the benefit of a reduction of about 10% on their private passenger auto insurance premiums for one year. To qualify for this reduction, a driver cannot have any driving convictions or at-fault accidents at level 1. Discounts for driver education will also be applied on top of the 10%.

After completing levels 1 and 2, drivers will have built a two-year driving record, which is considered by insurance companies when setting premiums. Drivers who successfully complete this two-tiered program and acquire full licence privileges will also receive a reduction of about 10% for one year. To qualify, they must have had no driving convictions or at-fault accidents. Driver education discounts will also apply.

We believe these reductions are fair treatment of new drivers with restricted driving privileges. We believe the safer driving habits that this program encourages will benefit everyone who uses Ontario roadways.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I'm going to respond to the Minister of Education and Training's statement. Under this government, youth crime has increased dramatically and violence in our schools has increased dramatically.

This statement today is of little substance. Basically, what we have is a downloading of the problem to local school boards. There's little clear direction and there is absolutely no comment with respect to resources.

This government has withdrawn resources, by reason of the social contract, from the school boards, resulting in the inability of school boards to provide the services necessary to assist principals, teachers and students. Now all it does is come in with a motherhood statement and set a deadline for school boards to come up with a policy. That is not good enough.

We need clear guidelines. In our paper Better Schools we indicate that we require zero tolerance of violent and abusive acts in our schools, recognizing that there will be a range of consequences for such behaviour, establishing with school boards, students, parents and communities clear standards for conduct in all schools and using the local school councils to involve parents, students, community representatives and teachers in a development of programs to make sure the standards are being met.

We even have a program here in Toronto, in the Etobicoke school board, where they're trying to implement a student Crime Stoppers program. This has been implemented in 20 schools in Edmonton and has proved very, very successful. This pilot project in Etobicoke has asked this government for very modest assistance for this Crime Stoppers program. This government basically is closing the door on them.

What this government is doing is talking motherhood. It's downloading the problem of resources, it's downloading the problem of policy. It has done absolutely nothing with this policy document, other than saying to the school boards, "By 1995, have a policy." They need to be clear, they need to take control, they need to show leadership and they definitely need to indicate in some fashion reallocated resources or new resources so this terrible problem can be solved.

I'm a parent of three kids in elementary and high school. I know the problems they come home with. I know the fears students have. I can relate to the problem parents have with respect to violence in our schools. When one examines the statement that this minister has made today, there is nothing there, other than a timetable for school boards to come up with solutions.

We want a statement on resources, we want clear policies, not a couple of generalities which this minister has mouthed here today, and we're going to hold this minister accountable on behalf of the students and the parents in this province.

1400

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I rise today to comment on my colleague the Finance minister's announcement of premium reductions for the graduated licence holders in the province of Ontario.

I suspect that this announcement has got something to do with the fact that they had to have some good news to coincide with the implementation of the graduated licence program.

What this gentleman has done today is said, "I haven't got a clue what the price of insurance will be for these individuals but I can tell you all that I am prepared to state unequivocally that it should be about 10% less than whatever you hear it is."

It seems that this gentleman doesn't need the rate-setting abilities of the Ontario Insurance Commission. He doesn't care what they decide is relevant. He has said, "I, Floyd Laughren, the Finance minister, say that no matter what anybody else thinks it should be, I think it should be 10% less."

Is there any other indication in this world of ours that this government is on a roll towards the ballot box? This appears to be one of his first attempts to garner favour by using, as the Finance minister has often done, somebody else's money to make him look like he's doing a great job.

I think that he should be the first to give us all his advice on whether or not the public in Ontario should give the New Democrats a minimum of 10% less support over the next election, and maybe even less than that.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My response is to the statement made by the Minister of Education and Training. Although I appreciate the announcement today, I would have to indicate that this announcement is long overdue. It simply is a commonsense approach to a problem.

In fact, it's a problem that our leader, Mr Harris, has been identifying now since early 1993. He and our colleague the critic for Education have asked numerous questions on this issue since that time and they have received virtually no response from the minister on this particular issue. However, having said that it's long overdue and we do appreciate that it's here, there's certainly a great deal missing from the announcement today. I would like to focus on what's missing.

The minister has indicated, "We will not tolerate racism or homophobia in the schools of this province." I find it surprising that you would highlight those two issues. I don't see that they're key to the schools in this province. Your own colleague, the minister responsible for women's issues, talked about sexual harassment not too long ago and you have chosen not to include it as being a very serious cause of concern. I'm certainly quite disappointed that this doesn't rate with racism and homophobia. Obviously, it isn't an issue that you're concerned about.

Also, what's not happening is that you haven't listened well to the parents in this province or to teachers in this province. They are asking you to take a look at the issue of prevention. We know there is a correlation between violent behaviour and the media, yet this government refuses to take any action whatsoever.

I introduced a private member's bill asking that we introduce a rating system for computer games and video games, in order that children would not be exposed to adult games. This government has elected to do absolutely nothing.

I would suggest that you do take action. This announcement today has been five years in coming.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): We have suffered with this government through the issue of government-run auto insurance. That was a disaster. A year ago we were told that through the new auto insurance plan this government promised rate stability, to hold the line on rates. What has happened over the past year? The rates have gone up by 17%. Motorists in the province of Ontario have been inflicted with 17% increases. The provincial sales tax has been applied to auto insurance.

Our critic, the member for York Mills, has been urging the government to implement the graduated licensing system. The Insurance Bureau of Canada has been urging the government to introduce the graduated licensing program. Now they have been betrayed. This is the treatment they get.

This is simply for political gain, to balance the fact that the fees have been increased by up to $125. The insurance industry has said, "Let's get the experience; let's find out how much saving there is," and then the insurance industry would pass that along to the motorist through lower rates. That's the way it should work.

If we do not have the experience of the lessening of accidents through this program, then the motorists in the province of Ontario will be subsidizing this program to the tune of up to $40 million a year. Is that fair? Should the motorists of the province of Ontario be subsidizing the graduated licensing system?

If the experience is good and if accidents have been decreased, then why not let the insurance industry pass along, as it said it would, as it's committed and it has worked with you on, the lower rates here in Ontario?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Having sat throughout the graduated licensing hearings, I know that the insurance companies committed to reducing premiums when and if experience showed that it was appropriate. They have been betrayed by this government because indeed it was the Insurance Bureau of Canada that first suggested that graduated licensing would save taxpayers money and would save lives, and this is the thanks it gets. Before there is any experience, the government is mandating this for crass political reasons.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TVONTARIO HEADQUARTERS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Culture. Minister, we were a little bit surprised yesterday, when we again asked you about possible plans for a new building for TVOntario, that the Premier seemed to be particularly anxious that we ask him that question very directly.

Minister, we're just wondering today exactly who is in charge of TVOntario, who is making the decisions over there and who is responsible for answering the questions.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): It's true that the Premier has certainly expressed his inclination on this issue. I've also made it very clear what my own consideration in this issue is, and that's that one of the many factors we will be considering when eventually the recommendations come from TVO of what options they want to present to us is that in the political process of decision-making, clearly one of the issues will be the glut on the real estate market.

The recommendations haven't come to us yet, so obviously it's very premature to make a final decision on this issue.

1410

Mrs McLeod: Minister, our confusion on who is responsible continues, and you will understand why. This is now the third day in a row on which you have indicated that TVOntario is looking at a variety of options for relocation and you have refused to rule out the possibility that building a brand-new building is one of the options that they're considering. But it was equally clear outside this House yesterday that the Premier said there was no new building in his plans.

Minister, I ask you, how do you reconcile what you continue to tell this House with what the Premier has said, and does TVOntario know that there is no new building in their plans?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: The Leader of the Opposition used to be a cabinet minister herself, so I'm sure that she will recall that an agency of the government first seeks approval to pursue developers' proposals in a situation like this.

TVO sought and received their approval three years ago to undertake the kind of extensive public tendering process about which another member of the opposition asked me yesterday: "Would you please make sure there's an open process embarked upon?" Throughout that open process, 85 different developers submitted proposals for some new and some old buildings.

Eventually, over those three years, it went down further and further till, when I was minister and was originally briefed, we were down to eight different developers submitting proposals. More recently, I understand TVO is getting down to three to eventually be able to present to us its various options.

As the former minister, who is now Leader of the Opposition, well remembers, TVO will make a recommendation. I will consider that recommendation. I will then take that recommendation to treasury board. Treasury board will make a recommendation to cabinet. Ultimately, it will be a full cabinet decision that will result in the decision on this case.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, let me see if I can take this down to the basic issue that is before us today. You're right. I have had the experience of being a cabinet minister responsible for the direction within my particular ministries. I was also aware, as a cabinet minister, that the Premier had the ultimate responsibility for the direction of the government. Your Premier said yesterday that when it came to TVOntario's relocation, there was no new building in his plans.

There certainly seems to be some confusion lingering in your responses and in what TVOntario is doing. TVOntario has been making plans for a new building, and we have a letter that details the negotiations that had been going on between TVOntario and the city of Toronto for the necessary planning approvals and for building permits.

This letter indicates that TVOntario has been considering two sites, very specific sites, the Molson Breweries site at Bathurst and Lakeshore and CN railway land at Front and Spadina. It appears that TVOntario's plans are a long way down the road, and they most certainly include a new building in a city that has a 20% vacancy rate.

Minister, I ask you, since it appears that the Premier has taken over this particular project and since the Premier says that there is no plan for a new building for TVOntario, will you now, as the minister responsible for TVOntario, tell TVOntario to stop planning?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: The Premier made it clear that a new building is not in his plans, and that's true. He has no plans for a new building for TVO.

TVO is obviously looking at what its considerations are throughout this three-year process of looking at facilities that will be suitable for it as a broadcast facility.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, whom I'm sure is also a friend of TVO, to consider the fact that we are not talking here about an office building. We're talking here about a broadcast facility with very special needs. Whether those special needs will be able to be met by an existing building or not is part of what we'll have to consider.

I have made it clear in media scrums in this House -- not all media coverage has covered this -- from day one that once the recommendations eventually come for consideration from this government, one of the political considerations we will clearly be considering is the glut in the real estate market.

This is the first government in over 50 years to two years in a row reduce the cost of expenditures in this province. This is the government, it seems to me, based on its record, that the taxpayers can trust, more than the free-spending Liberals, more than the free-spending Conservatives before them --

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: -- to look after the interests of the public purse and we will do that on this issue.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: The minister invites me to answer the questions that she asked, and I would be more than happy to do that, but our question stands: Who's in charge, the minister, the Premier or TVOntario?

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Attorney General. Minister, as you're well aware, the federal government will today --

Interjection.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, the minister indicates that she cannot hear the question because of the noise in the House.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, as you are well aware, the federal government is today going to introduce amendments to the Young Offenders Act. These changes will toughen the laws regarding young criminals. We understand that the changes will include stiffer sentences for violent young offenders and a greater provision for trying young individuals accused of violent crimes in adult court.

I believe these proposals have a great deal of support among the people of this province. The public have certainly told us that we need stronger measures to deal with young people who are involved in violent crime.

I ask whether you have heard these same concerns and whether you agree with these proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act and agree that they are needed.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The member is quite right that the federal Justice minister has, and I understand did this morning, introduced amendments. We haven't seen the actual amendments, although when we wrote to the federal Attorney General in early May, we asked to see a copy of the draft bill so that we could comment in more detail on the actual wording of the bill.

However, I did respond to the minister in some detail around the outline he had provided about what he was proposing to do, and in fact have talked about that here in this House a number of times. Let me read you a paragraph of that letter to give you a flavour, and you may want to ask additional questions.

"Ontario believes that the YOA must be made more effective. Amendments are needed, especially in relation to serious violent crime. In particular, Ontario is concerned that existing maximum sentences are not sufficient. Ontario is also concerned that the existing provisions for transfer to adult court need to be strengthened to ensure that in appropriate cases charges of violent crime will be transferred. In addition, Ontario wants to address widely held concerns about the inappropriate use of custody for relatively minor, non-violent offences."

We go on in some detail on a number of different issues that were specifically mentioned by the minister.

As I have said in this House a number of times, we are supportive of the changes in general. We want to see the actual wording of the amendments. As soon as we have a chance to study those, we will be responding with any concerns that we have about the wording or the application of those. But we have certainly pledged ourselves all along --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- to be as cooperative as we possibly can with changes that meet the needs of the province in applying the Young Offenders Act.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the minister's response because I believe, as I've heard her, it does help to clarify a previous position that the minister was reported to have taken publicly.

Minister, when you were in Ottawa last March at a meeting of provincial justice ministers that was convened by the federal minister to get your views on juvenile crime, it appeared that you were resistant to toughening the Young Offenders Act and, quite clearly, that you did not support tougher sentences.

I just ask you again whether or not that was an accurate reflection of your views at that time, whether you continue to have reservations about the specific recommendations, whether in fact you have changed your position. Are you telling us that now that the federal government is acting to change the Young Offenders Act, you are prepared to support -- I ask you specifically: Are you prepared to support these proposed changes?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am not going to say holus-bolus that we will support a bill that we have not seen. This is an excuse the member always uses when she's asked if she will support legislation, and I certainly am not going to say that I will support everything in those amendments.

The letter that I read from is dated May 9. That was at or about the time of that conference. I have made it clear again and again that we are very supportive of the need to strengthen the Young Offenders Act. What we need to do, as the body that has to apply that act, is talk about the problems of that, and that is what we did as a province.

There are problems with mandatory sentences that go longer than five years less a day, because that requires jury trials, which now are not the rule for people who are in the youth justice system, as the member is well aware. That's a problem for us in the administration of justice, and it's a problem for the federal government because it means that section 96 judges are the ones who have to try those cases. We have a mutual problem in terms of how to administer justice in those cases if those young people are to go through the youth court. I would remind the member that the red book says they want to strengthen the youth justice system, and that then presents a problem and it is our obligation to point out that problem.

1420

The other problem exists in terms of where young offenders are incarcerated. A 10-year period is a very long period of time if someone is incarcerated for that period of time as a young offender. When do they get transferred to an adult facility and under what circumstances?

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Those are concerns we raised. We did not have concerns about the need to strengthen the sentencing. We did raise concerns about how to do that.

Mrs McLeod: I'm a little less clear, given the minister's second response, than I thought I was after the first response, because there were some very specific recommendations that I'm sure the minister is aware of.

One of those recommendations was increasing not mandatory sentencing but maximum sentencing from the five to 10 years, and the other was that there would be an automatic trial in adult court of young offenders, I believe, convicted of first- and second-degree murder unless requested by the province to not be tried in adult court. I was looking for the minister's support for those changes, which she had indicated some resistance to earlier.

The minister is right, and it's the reason for raising the question, that the changes that are being introduced in the federal House today, once passed, will still have no impact unless provincial prosecutors are directed to pursue them vigorously, and that can only happen with the support of this Attorney General.

Minister, we have already expressed some concern about a failure to act on anti-crime laws. Yesterday we expressed our concerns about not rigorously enforcing anti-stalking laws. I remind the minister that, on that issue, the anti-stalking laws that were implemented last year have not been followed through by this minister by telling crown prosecutors not to plea-bargain the stalking charges away. It is similar that the young offenders laws changes will have no impact unless this minister issues clear directives.

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

Mrs McLeod: Minister, on this issue are you prepared to be tough, and will you take the necessary steps to ensure that the changes to the Young Offenders Act are rigorously enforced in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Boyd: As usual, the Leader of the Opposition has her facts quite wrong. In fact, the proposal that the federal minister brought to us was mandatory sentencing for first- and second-degree murder for youth offenders of 10 and seven years respectively, not maximum sentence.

The actual wording of what he has introduced today I don't know, because he has written me a letter, which I received today, which simply says the proposals will lengthen sentences in youth court for youth who commit murder and provide greater control over young offenders in the community. I need to see his amendments before I can comment on them.

I have also made it very clear from the beginning on this that of course we will apply the federal law, as we do all the federal laws, and that there is no question about that. We have very vigorous prosecution in this province and take serious and violent crime very, very seriously. We know how concerned the public is and how concerned all of us are in this place about violent crime.

The last thing the member said is that we plea-bargained away stalking charges. I have looked into the case the Liberal House leader brought forward yesterday. In that case, under the criteria set out in the Martin commission report in terms of early resolution, we did not have a reasonable prospect of conviction on those charges but did have a prospect of conviction on other charges, and those were the ones we proceeded with.

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Finance, and it concerns the draft report from the all-party finance committee in Ottawa. According to the draft report which was disclosed yesterday, it appears that Ottawa will not be scrapping the GST. Instead, apparently they intend to bury the tax, to change its name and to broaden the base. Minister, my question to you is, do you support that approach?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): This is like a backbench question.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate that question from the government member.

I must say when I read that press report, my immediate reaction was one of disbelief. I thought, "There goes the press again, goofing up," because I remember very clearly that the federal government said it was going to abolish the GST. I have heard nothing different from them since they made that commitment, so I assume that the press report is wrong.

Mr David Johnson: I guess it would have to be the press report or the red book, one or the other.

As you know, Minister, the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus has consistently called for the harmonization of the federal GST and the provincial sales tax for some time. I'm thinking back to January of this year. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association apparently informed you at that point, and I'll quote exactly what they said, "The longer it takes to introduce a harmonized sales tax, the longer Canadian manufacturers remain at a competitive disadvantage in domestic and global markets."

I wonder, do you agree with this assessment, number one, and again, do you support the harmonization?

Hon Mr Laughren: The whole issue of the GST and harmonization, as the member will understand, is before the federal all-party committee in Ottawa, on which there's a very good representation from among the 99 Liberal MPs from the province of Ontario, and of course the chairman of that committee is none other than Mr James Peterson.

I did say to the federal Minister of Finance, to whom the committee will present its report, that we were very anxious to hear what they were going to propose once they'd received that report and had a chance themselves to look at it. I don't know, quite frankly, whether the government, when it receives the report, will act on what its recommendations contain or will have an entirely different agenda. What I said to the federal Minister of Finance is that, when they're ready to bring their proposal forward on the eventual solution to the problem of the GST and what will replace it, we would be quite prepared to sit down and talk to them about it.

Mr David Johnson: I guess, as you say, we'll wait to see what those 98 Liberals come up with. But 50 of the largest national trade associations have organized into a coalition with regard to the GST. I'm sure you're aware of this coalition. They have called for a harmonization of the GST and the PST to avoid the duplication and the impact on business. I'm speaking in terms of organizations such as the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, the Retail Council of Canada and on and on, some 50 organizations.

Minister, the fate of the harmonization will be discussed at your meeting of finance ministers coming up this month, I believe June 28. My question to you simply is: At that meeting, what will you be pushing for? What motions will you be pushing for, and will the harmonization be one of your priorities at that meeting?

Hon Mr Laughren: The report was originally scheduled to be completed by June 1. I understand now that there has been a delay in when the report will be completed. The last date I heard was June 21, so I'm not sure whether it'll even be done in time for the finance ministers' meeting at the end of June.

I think the member for Don Mills would agree with me, and I do appreciate his question, that until we see what the federal government intends to do, exactly how it intends to replace the GST, it would not be a particularly wise negotiating strategy for me to say at this point exactly what we intend to do.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): That really is the politics effect: "Don't tell anybody what we believe in and what we stand for. Let's wait until after elections till we find out."

1430

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Attorney General. Earlier today, Attorney General -- it has already been commented on in the House -- the federal Minister of Justice announced long-overdue changes to the Young Offenders Act. As you know, we've been calling on you for some time to push the federal government to toughen the act.

Quite frankly, we were disappointed earlier this year when it was reported that you were calling for greater leniency at the attorneys general meeting. I heard your response today to the leader of the Liberal Party that a month and a half or two months after that meeting, somebody in your party suggested that was the wrong approach. You wrote a letter and I heard some of the comments you made in the letter.

I also understand you've said you want to wait until you see the legislation. You don't trust Mr Rock, who outlined it in detail today. You'd like to see the legal wording, and that's fine.

As I guess you believe the reporting of your meeting was inaccurate, can you tell me and this House what it is you did lobby for at that attorneys general meeting back in March?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I certainly can. Some of it is reflected, at least as I read Mr Rock's letter; that is, in terms of the whole attention to the lower end of the scale, the less serious offences, the ones that do not involve violence against individuals, to really look at how we can deal with that more effectively and in a way that does not automatically consign those who are convicted to any form of incarceration but deals with some reconciliation within the community, some community service, some other way of changing their behaviours. That was the major thrust of what we were saying.

It's hard for us as provinces to do the kind of work we want to do in reallocating our resources to deal more effectively with serious and interpersonal violence when we have our system in a state that is really dealing at very great length and with great cost, in the legal aid area, in the cost of incarceration and so on, with crimes that are relatively minor property crimes and are in fact crimes that are better dealt with in a different way.

I'm very encouraged, as I read the information I received from Mr Rock today, that this is a big part of what they are planning to do, and I can certainly support that.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: We also talked about the issue of exchanging information about young offenders. I understand there's been some change in terms of how the information can be transferred between police and school authorities. That is a very interesting part of it. How to coordinate youth services was another issue, that these need to be integrated across the health, social services and criminal justice systems, not maintained simply within the criminal justice system.

Mr Harris: Minister, our caucus was somewhat disappointed with the federal package that was announced. Yesterday we tabled a motion urging you to publicly lobby the federal minister to bring forward eight specific amendments. One of our amendments that we introduced yesterday, which was not included in the federal package, lowers the maximum age for a young offender from 18 to 16. This would mean that all offenders older than 16 would be tried in adult court, they'd be subject to stiffer sentencing and they would not be protected by a publication ban. Will you, on behalf of all Ontarians, urge the federal minister to bring forward this amendment?

Hon Mrs Boyd: No. It should not surprise anyone in this House or in this province that the agenda on social and criminal justice of the New Democratic Party is very different from that of the Progressive Conservative Party. We basically are saying that we do not see the destruction of a youth justice system as the necessary and obvious way in which to achieve the kind of attention to serious violent crime by young offenders.

We think the federal government's changes today are ones we will be able to support. We assume we will be able to support them, with the information we have, unless there's some surprise when we see the full reading of the bill. And we are delighted that the federal government has said we will continue the in-depth study of the rest of the act to see what can be done in terms of some of the other concerns that we have brought up and that other provinces have brought up.

So my answer is no. I will not be lobbying along the lines of your party, but I will certainly be lobbying along the lines of our own criminal justice policy.

Mr Harris: The problem, you see, is this: The New Democratic Party, and on this issue supported by the Liberal Party, does not represent the viewpoints of Ontarians, and I believe it is your job as Attorney General to take the viewpoints of Ontarians forward to lobby the federal government -- not your own ideology, not what you think, not what the NDP thinks; what Ontarians are asking you to do.

We also believe that repeat young offenders should be dealt with more strictly. We believe that once a young offender has been convicted of two offences, any subsequent offence should be tried in adult court. This means that repeat youth offenders would be subject to stiffer sentencing, be subject to having a permanent record and would not be protected by a publication ban. Minister, will you lobby the federal minister to bring forward this three-strikes-and-you're-out amendment to the Young Offenders Act?

Hon Mrs Boyd: No.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY SPENDING

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I'm sensitive to the earlier protestations made by the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation about free spending, because indeed my question concerns some questionable spending by your ministry.

I have in my hand a copy of an invitation which has been extended to all employees of the Ministry of Environment and Energy to attend a party to honour the passage of the Environmental Bill of Rights in this Legislature, and this party is going to be held in your office on Friday, June 10, in Toronto. The invitation indicates that there is going to be, along with refreshments, entertainment. This is an invitation which has been extended to every employee in the Ministry of Environment in this province. Minister, can you tell me how much the ministry expects to spend on this gala event, and how can you justify this expenditure?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm not sure the member really understands how large my office is, but I don't think it can accommodate all the members of the ministry staff, even on a whole day, Friday.

I think all of us in this House celebrate the passage of the Environmental Bill of Rights, which, as Pollution Probe has said, is the first and most significant piece of legislation passed in environmental protection in the last two decades in Ontario. It is something we should all celebrate.

The member asked specifically for the amount we expect to spend on this reception. I don't have that figure with me, but I will obtain it for him.

Mr Offer: While the ministry and the Minister of Environment and Energy are frivolously spending money to pat yourself on the back, I would like to inform you that your emergency response program has been gutted. According to a confidential document we have received, your ministry, as you are partying next Friday, intends to drastically change and reduce the emergency response program, which is designed to respond quickly to emergency situations involving spills of hazardous materials. Under the new program, your ministry will be less prepared to handle spills of hazardous toxic materials should they happen to occur after 10 pm on weekdays or any time on the weekends or holidays. How can you justify the spending of money for a party for all your employees this June 10 while at the same time gutting the emergency response program which is designed to respond to toxic spills in this province?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member is just being silly. The fact is that we are not gutting the emergency response of the ministry. The member also should be fully aware that the expenditure for the reception planned for June 10 has no significance one way or the other in terms of the decisions around the expenditures with regard to emergency response.

And his suggestion that in some way or other we are attempting to pat ourselves on the back misses the point. In fact, if we're patting anyone on the back, we're congratulating the people who participated in the task force that designed the Environmental Bill of Rights: the environmentalists, the representatives of the business community, as well as government representatives. Frankly, if the member is so concerned about the party, he's welcome to attend.

1440

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, it's my understanding that an order in council is soon to be passed allowing for the establishment of a permanent bingo and Monte Carlo facility on Scugog Island. I further understand that the province has been in negotiation with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation for approximately one year now, yet the township of Scugog was only informed of this development late last week.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): That's not true.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Hey, kick him out.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Eves: I learned yesterday not to rise to that bait, I hope, if I've ever learned anything. Anyway, I'll deal with the member for Durham East later.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A year ago I told the mayor of Scugog township about this development. That's not true, what he said.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. The member for Parry Sound with his question.

Mr Stockwell: Withdraw, Gord. Withdraw.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Throw him out, Mr Speaker. You heard what he said.

The Speaker: The member for Durham East knows better. Would the member simply withdraw the unparliamentary language.

Mr Mills: I will not withdraw that, because it's the truth.

Interjections.

Mr Mills: That is a lie. What he said, that's a lie. I'm not going to withdraw that under any circumstance.

The Speaker: The member is named. Mr Gordon Mills, you are named. Please leave the chamber, and you may not attend the committees thereof for the balance of the sitting day.

Mr Mills left the chamber.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Parry Sound with his question.

Interjection: You're next, Ernie.

Mr Eves: I'm not withdrawing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Eves: If I may continue, relying upon the advice that the municipality has provided to the Premier and to myself and others today, the minister should be aware that the township of Scugog adopted a resolution yesterday and wrote to the Premier to express their various concerns about the lack of information, despite what the member for Durham East says, provided to them on this issue.

These concerns include: adequacy of well water in the area; soil capability of handling an adequate septic system; a study to determine whether there's adequate hydro; a capability of providing emergency services of fire, police and ambulance; a study to determine the impact upon adjacent property owners; a traffic study to determine the impact of additional vehicles per day on the road, because it's already carrying to its capacity, and so on.

Why did the minister not advise the municipality of this permanent charitable gaming facility application earlier so it could have some input with respect to its concerns?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I believe the member already got his answer from the -- I'm playing second fiddle here today.

It was my understanding, seriously, that the community was informed, that the member did inform the community and that the first nations also consulted with the community.

I also, you will recall, on June 29, 1993, I think it was, announced here in the House that I, the minister, on behalf of the government, had signed the gaming agreement with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island. It was our very first agreement on a charitable gaming agreement, which we have been working on for some time with a number of first nations over Ontario. This was our first agreement which was signed, and since then we have been working on a gaming code, which isn't quite complete.

My understanding is that the community was made aware. I also understand, however, that there have been some recent concerns expressed.

Mr Eves: I would say to the minister that she and the member for Durham East are at opposition with what the township of Scugog says. I wouldn't want to be wrong, so I'm going to quote directly from their letter to the Premier and I'm going to quote directly from their resolution. Part of their resolution says --

Interjection: Part?

Mr Eves: Well, I could read the whole thing, but I imagine the Speaker would cut me off.

"Whereas there has been no consultation process with the council of the township of Scugog or the regional municipality of Durham with respect to the possible adverse impacts with respect to the following," the ones I just read to you, "and whereas there has been no process of information provided to the public or the municipality by the provincial government...."

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): What about the letter?

Mr Eves: The letter would not help you, trust me, Floyd. The letter that was written to the Premier gives a quote by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on May 16, which says almost exactly the opposite. It says that "the government will consult with all municipalities and interested groups in any such applications of this sort."

The municipality obviously feels it has not been consulted with, so if the member for Durham East knows they were contacted and consulted with, he knows something which seems to be at direct odds with what the township has put in writing to the Premier today.

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

Mr Eves: Will you now honour the request in the letter to the Premier, which requests that on behalf of council you withhold the granting of any licence until all the issues they have raised can be addressed? Will you go that far?

Hon Ms Churley: When I became aware that there were some concerns in the community outside the reserve, I did meet with the chief and we discussed some of those concerns, after which we organized a meeting to which several of the community leaders were invited, including the local MPP. That meeting was held I think within the last week or two, and many of those --

Mr Eves: Last Friday.

Hon Ms Churley: Okay, and many of those concerns were expressed. It's my understanding -- I couldn't go myself but one of my staff did attend -- that there were some agreements reached at that time in terms of dealing with some of the concerns that were raised. It's still my understanding that this is the process, and the chief committed at that time to continue consulting with and working with the community to make sure those concerns are addressed. Over time, if more problems or perceived problems come up, he also committed to continue working with the community to deal with those problems.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, you would know that your ministry and this government made changes to the northern travel grant starting last February in terms of referring people outside of northern Ontario for medical services.

As of late, a number of people have come by my office whose children have to travel off to specialists to deal with a number of diseases and injuries etc that pertain to children. The problem, simply put, is this: In communities like Timmins and Sault Ste Marie and Sudbury we have a number of specialists within our own communities, but in many cases those specialists don't do subspecialties such as paediatrics. There is a number of parents whose travel grants have been denied because of that situation. Even though they're supposed to get paid a travel grant if they don't do a subspecialty, they're being rejected. Could you please clarify for the people of Cochrane South what you plan to do to resolve this?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to address this question because, as members of the House will know, we have changed the northern health travel grant in order to require that people are referred to the closest possible specialist, as the member has said. Within that, there is the subspecialty of paediatrics, and while somebody may be listed as a specialist, they may in fact not deal with children's services.

I want to assure the member that the intent of the program is to enable people to go to the closest specialist who deals with their particular problem, which means of course that they have to find the closest paediatric specialist if that's the care they need. If, as the changeover has occurred, people have had difficulties in getting compensation or payment for their travel, we would certainly be prepared to address that issue.

1450

Mr Bisson: I wonder if you can clarify not only for the people of Cochrane South but for the people of northern Ontario exactly what your ministry plans to do in order to be able to address this problem.

Hon Mrs Grier: We certainly have been discussing the problem with agencies. For example, I know the member received a copy of a letter the Easter Seal Society had given to me pointing out some of the problems. We have been working within the ministry to ensure that we have an accurate list of all the specialists and those who treat paediatric patients as well as those who don't. We are currently calling all the orthopaedic specialists in the north to confirm who is treating children and who is not so that we will maintain our current list as up to date as we possibly can. As I said in my response to his first question, if people feel that there have been errors made in the way in which their grant application was dealt with, we want to know about that and will correct those errors.

JOB CREATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): My question today is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, as you know, on March 22, I brought to your attention a 16-page report, which I sent over to you, from the unemployment insurance offices in Trenton and Belleville outlining the many layoffs and plant closures in the Quinte area. On that day, I asked you what measures your government was taking to assist the residents of eastern Ontario to get back to work, specifically in our area. In your response, you stated that you would be pleased to sit down and look at the list and look at particular issues of assistance. That was two months ago.

On Tuesday, May 31 of this week, Quaker Oats Co of Canada, in a notice which I have here today, announced the closing down of its plant in Trenton, affecting between 160 and 170 hourly and salaried employees. In addition, the restructuring will involve cutting back between 50 to 60 salaried jobs throughout the company.

Minister, as you also know, over the last four years it is estimated that close to 3,000 jobs have been lost in the Quinte area. I have raised this matter with you on previous occasions, in the past, outlining the severity of the unemployment issue in my riding. To date there have been no results. Residents in my riding are losing hope.

Minister, what are you prepared to do to assist residents of Trenton and the Quinte area in job creation?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member opposite makes reference to a question that he raised in the House earlier and information that he provided to me with respect to plant closures and job losses in the Quinte area and beyond. I undertook at that point in time to review those and to indicate to him of what assistance we had been or could be with respect to those particular projects, and did provide that feedback to him, responded to him in detail about the kind of contact we had had through the Eastern Ontario Development Corp or through MEDT staff offices in all those cases.

I also take seriously the comments the member makes with respect to the impact the recession has had in eastern Ontario and have been working with people in the cabinet secretariat, jobs secretariat, to undertake an eastern Ontario regional overview in which we have looked at the nature of industry and the various diverse industries in various parts of eastern Ontario, the impact of job loss, where we've been able to be of assistance through strategic investment, the kind of infrastructure investment that's been necessary, the jobs created out of that, and what themes come from that in terms of areas of government assistance that can leverage the most benefit back to the region.

We see things emerge. I'll be pleased to discuss that with the member, but I think he can see by the transportation infrastructure investments we're making, the waterway cleanup and infrastructure investment --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- the tourism and agritourism opportunities, along with what we're doing in the manufacturing sector, that we do have a comprehensive analysis and a response that we're developing. I'd be pleased to share that with the member and ask for his assistance in implementing it.

Mr O'Neil: Of course, Minister, and in all respect, this is basically the same answer that I got from you two or three months ago. The thing is that we have these people, close to 3,000 people in the Quinte area, who've been laid off. In many other areas you've stepped in with certain types of job assistance to get people working. The majority of these people who have been laid off in the area are union members who are now without jobs, who have had to draw UI, who are now going on to welfare and who soon will be without any amount of substantial funds at all.

It's no good to say that some of your ministry people are going in there and looking at these studies and trying to come up with answers. The thing is that you can study this thing to death, but we need to have you and your ministry staff and your government do something to create some jobs right at the present time. That's not being done. These people cannot wait. We need some action. I'm asking you directly: Never mind the studies. Let's see how you can go in there and create some jobs for us in the Quinte area.

Hon Ms Lankin: The answer I just gave was not at all the same as what I indicated to the member a few months ago. Considerable work has been done. I'm looking at the overview that we have prepared, looking at industry and communities in eastern Ontario, looking at the results of all the community economic development strategies from towns in eastern Ontario that we've pulled together, which brings forward the strategy of looking first of all at retention and repositioning of the existing businesses.

For example, there is the biotech field in Ottawa, which we're working with, agricultural-industrial initiatives in the Peterborough area, manufacturing in Brockville and the industrial sector in Cornwall. I can go on through Quinte, through Trenton, through all of the eastern Ontario communities, looking at the attraction of new businesses: Belleville, the plastics chemical manufacturing in Cornwall, the wood products in Pembroke that we're working with, looking at tourism revitalization, waterfront enhancements, infrastructure improvements.

We have stepped in through the difficult recession in terms of creating jobs in eastern Ontario. If I look at all the anti-recession, the Jobs Ontario and strategic investments, the EODC initiatives --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- we have created 19,000 jobs in eastern Ontario since 1990. We have been working with people. We have specific proposals on projects in Ottawa-Carleton, eastern Ontario, Hastings-Frontenac, Northumberland, Leeds-Grenville --

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- Prescott, Hastings, Stormont, Quinte, Trenton, and I go on. I'd be pleased to share this information with the member. We are concerned about eastern Ontario. We are working comprehensively to respond to the economic conditions there.

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the minister responsible for native affairs. My question relates to the manner in which your government is conducting land-claim negotiations relating to the Wahta Mohawks at Gibson Lake. Private land owners and municipalities do not feel that the government has their interests at heart at the negotiation table. Quite frankly, the non-native community does not feel that your government represents its interests.

Minister, will you commit today to take action to ensure that all those affected by your negotiations are provided with a voice at the negotiation table?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): I appreciate the question. This, as the member will know, is a land claim initiated by the Wahta Mohawks or Mohawks of Gibson First Nation some time ago that was accepted by the federal government. The federal government encouraged the province to become involved. We are currently involved, as the member will know, in extensive consultations with all of the various interests -- the local property owners, the cottagers, the municipalities -- to ensure that we understand their concerns and can represent them at the negotiating table.

I think it would be better if all three parties in the negotiations were participating in this consultation, but despite the fact that the federal government and the first nation have chosen not to proceed in this way, the province is determined to carry out a proper consultation with all concerned.

1500

Mr Harnick: You see, Minister, individuals who are directly affected by the actions of your government have been shut out of the process. We're not pointing the finger at the federal government and we're not pointing the finger at the Wahta nation, but the non-native community has specific concerns regarding future development and the environment and how these negotiations will affect their quality of life.

How can you assure the non-native community that their quality of life will be respected in the course of these negotiations and that the non-native community will be given a meaningful position in the negotiation process?

Hon Mr Wildman: As I indicated in my previous response, our chief negotiator is currently involved in extensive consultations. That's frankly how most of the affected parties have learned about the negotiations, because the province is in fact carrying out these consultations.

He asks how they can be assured that their interests will be taken into account. The very fact that we have initiated these consultations is an indication that the provincial government is most concerned about assuring the residents of the area, the various interests and the municipalities that their concerns will be represented by Ontario in the negotiations. If we weren't concerned about them, we wouldn't have initiated the consultation.

I encourage everyone who has an interest to ensure that they participate in the consultation, that they get their concerns on the table, that they express them to our chief negotiator, and I can assure the member that those concerns will be taken into account in determining Ontario's position in the negotiations.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST LEGISLATION

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. This week I attended Niagara Falls city council meeting to update them on provincial matters, which I do regularly.

Minister, recently you introduced into this House legislation that will amend the conflict-of-interest rules governing local municipal councils. All across Ontario, as well as the city of Niagara Falls, people are thinking of running in this fall's municipal elections, and I certainly encourage them to do so, especially women. At this time, they are not sure of how the proposed changes with regard to disclosure will affect them. When will candidates, as well as city clerks, be able to see the disclosure of financial information form?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I thank the member for her question. As she and other members know, members of the public have been asking for more open local government for many years and therefore I was privileged to introduce this legislation.

My ministry alone receives hundreds of requests each year from people in various parts of the province, in large municipalities and small municipalities, expressing concern about certain ways in which local government is being conducted. Therefore, our proposed changes are focusing on a more open and transparent form of government locally, and a detailed package of information will be sent out to the municipalities next week so that local councils, boards, municipal clerks and indeed candidates and potential candidates can examine exactly what is happening.

Ms Harrington: Open local government, which is a featured part of your new bill, means open meetings. What items may be allowed to be held in camera, that is, behind closed doors, in future?

Hon Mr Philip: It's vital that citizens be able to watch and understand the goings-on of their local councils in order for them to be active participants in their communities. Open and accessible meetings are a vital linchpin for local democracy.

There are, however, legitimate circumstances in which local councils may wish to go into camera: for example, such matters as personnel matters, litigation, security or legal advice.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Philip: What our legislation does --

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): What happened to the bill?

Hon Mr Philip: The Liberals don't want to know about this. They voted against it. They don't believe in having transparent government.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): That's right. They've got lots of trouble that way.

Hon Mr Philip: And they have lots of trouble with some of their members now who are in local government.

What our legislation does is clearly describe the items that can be discussed in camera, the procedure that must be followed by a council before and after a closed council meeting, and in all cases, and I know the Liberals don't want this because their local councillors don't want an open government in all cases, final decisions must be made and recorded in public meetings. That's the kind of open government that we're introducing in this province.

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Talking about open government, I'd like to ask you a question on open government, Mr Minister. On March 14 of this year, you received a letter from seven of the 15 Scarborough council members requesting that you look into the process of a decision made at their council.

Let me refresh your memory. Price Club had applied to council for rezoning and also an official plan amendment. That application was turned down by a vote of eight to seven. That decision was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and a hearing date was set for March 4, but prior to March 4, on March 2, a pre-arranged meeting was set up by council and overturned the previous commitment they had made to appeal this, to fight this before the OMB.

Mr Minister, I want to tell you that this discussion, this meeting, was in camera. The discussion took place in camera. A vote was taken in camera. They have applied to you. They asked you on March 14. What are your plans to deal with this issue?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There is considerable difficulty in dealing with any matter that is before the Ontario Municipal Board. Therefore, while I accept that a letter has been written, and I will give a detailed response to the member's question in writing, let me just say this: On the general issue, not the specific issue, of which this matter was a part, we have appointed Dale Martin to look into the broader general issues of how to deal with issues like this. He is expected to bring down a report to me. The moment we have a report and some possible directions, which I will first of all want to share with the honourable member and also with others whose opinion I respect, we will certainly make that public to him and to others. I'll appreciate any advice he might like to provide to me on this.

It's important on this issue that we deal with the fact that we must deal only with planning concerns and that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is not in a position to in any way pass judgements that would in any way affect free and open competition, which of course only the consumer is in a position to dictate.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Last week, the member for Simcoe East posed a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In the context of that question, the member who posed the question indicated that the member for Norfolk will not return calls or meet with the mayor of Norfolk. I was very concerned about that statement and went directly to the telephone to call up Mr Hector Verhoeve, the mayor of Norfolk.

Mr Verhoeve informed me that no such statement was made in his meeting with the representatives from the Conservative caucus on the day in question, and went on to assure me that he had no problem in meeting with myself and, for that matter, had met with me four days previous on that issue and had also met directly with the Premier in the riding on that issue.

Because of that, I believe that I have been served an injustice in this House by that particular statement and feel that it's worthy of the other member, now that this has been pointed out clearly, because I understand that he was not at that meeting personally, to clarify his position and withdraw that.

The Speaker: To the honourable member for Norfolk, first, he will know that he does not have a point of privilege. There indeed is a difference of opinion on this particular item. He has made a request that the member for Simcoe East correct his own record, and of course that opportunity is available to the member at any particular time. But I thank the member for drawing this matter to my attention.

1510

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It being Thursday, I think it's only fitting that we take an opportunity to congratulate the member for Sarnia on his 47th birthday.

The Speaker: That's certainly a point of interest and at least of congratulations as well.

Now, this isn't another birthday? The member for Eglinton.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Mr Speaker, I also add my congratulations or commiserations to the member for Sarnia.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas it is a basic right of every adult human being to form a committed spousal relationship with another adult person of their choice under the protection of the law and without discrimination based on whether the individuals are the same or opposite gender;

"Whereas persons in this province who are members of same-sex families are improperly denied basic fundamental protection, freedoms, rights and advantages accorded to families solely because they are not of opposite sexes;

"Whereas Ontario courts and tribunals, the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the Parliament of Europe have found that the denial of these rights is discriminatory and unfair; and

"Whereas an incorrect perception has been generated that members of faith communities oppose ending such discrimination;

"We, the undersigned, as members of faith communities, support the extension of full benefits and responsibilities accorded to heterosexual couples to persons in established same-sex relationships."

I agree with this petition and have affixed my signature.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned members of this church, Erindale Bible Chapel, are opposed to the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act on the basis that this will be redefine 'family' in a way which conflicts with God's loving plan as stated in the Scriptures."

There are 100 signatures to this petition, to which I will add my own.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): My petition is 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 of Ontario 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 affixed my signature to this petition.

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition 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 or at any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I will affix my signature to the petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination;

"Whereas we believe that the Solicitor General 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;

"Whereas we believe that we should not have to take the time or pay the cost 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 the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Amend 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."

There are 19 signatures from Orillia, Coldwater, Brechin, Port Severn, Washago, Bracebridge and Stouffville, and I've affixed my signature to it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

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

"Whereas Canada was founded on Judeo-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 constituents in both the London and Elgin ridings.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): 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; 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 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 of Ontario as follows:

I affix my signature.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 supports the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 103,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas this is equivalent to 30% of all the students in the area; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is expected to provide the same programs and services as its public school counterpart and must do so by receiving $1,822 less for each elementary school student and $2,542 less per secondary student;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now to ensure that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded fully and equally."

I have affixed my signature.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the Collingwood area are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in the Collingwood area;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in Alliston and Collingwood;

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of Collingwood."

That's signed by literally hundreds of constituents from my riding, and I've affixed my signature to it.

1520

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario courts and tribunals, the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the Parliament of Europe have found that the denial of these rights is discriminatory and unfair; and

"Whereas an incorrect perception has been generated that members of faith communities oppose ending such discrimination;

"We, the undersigned, as members of faith communities, support the extension of full benefits and responsibilities accorded to heterosexual couples to persons in established same-sex relationships."

I affix my signature to that.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to the Minister of the Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas we believe that 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 the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To amend 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."

I've affixed my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the legislation announced recently by the Attorney General of Ontario, and which now awaits second reading, enabling gay and lesbian couples to adopt children, share employee benefits and even sue for alimony; and

"Whereas Boyd calls the proposed legislation 'a jewel in her crown' but may as well be 'a nail in her coffin;' and

"Whereas in Genesis 2:20 to 22, we read: 'But for Adam no suitable partner was found, so the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made woman from the rib he had taken out of the man.' The name of Adam's companion was Eve, not Steve;

"We, the undersigned, therefore request that members of the House refrain from supporting this piece of legislation which gives same-sex couples the same benefits presently offered to heterosexual relationships along with the freedom to adopt children. We feel that there is no sound base to this request and therefore should be rejected as being unorthodox. The ability to adopt children will only lead to the extension of their lifestyle. Since the animals of the field show no evidence of it, why should we, as ones who are supposed to have more sense, approve of this bill?"

FIREARMS SAFETY

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which petitions the Assembly as follows:

"We, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to 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."

This petition is signed by about 190 Ontario residents.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

"We, the undersigned, are totally opposed to the proposed legislation by the NDP provincial government which would provide homosexual and lesbian couples with the same rights and status as heterosexual couples, including the right to adopt children.

"If passed into law, this legislation will have a devastating effect on the moral and social fabric of the province. We urgently appeal to you and to your Liberal colleagues in the House to join with the other members of the Legislature who are opposed to this measure to ensure that it is decisively rejected."

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

FIREARMS SAFETY

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

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

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years (we are not unsafe and we are not criminals); 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 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 and/or examination."

WOLF POPULATION

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly in the province of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has implemented a ban on hunting and trapping in Algonquin of timber wolves in the areas of Hagarty and Richards townships and Sherwood, Jones and Burns townships from the 15th of December, 1993, to the 15th of March, 1994;

"Whereas this ban has been placed by the Minister of Natural Resources on the basis of a scientific study titled Winter Wolf Excursions and Mortality Patterns in Algonquin Park, which was conducted from 1987 until the present under the direction of John P. Theberge and Waterloo University faculty of environmental studies;

"Whereas the citizens of the affected areas have petitioned the province of Ontario to lift the ban so as to continue with hunting and trapping of Algonquin Park wolves;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the province of Ontario to implement the following:

"Keep the existing ban in effect, as was determined by the appropriate aforementioned scientific study, not to lift the subject ban based on a minority of citizens in the subject area;

"Have the Ministry of Natural Resources place future bans of hunting and trapping of wolves in the areas near Algonquin Park which are recommended on the basis of scientific study conducted by John P. Theberge of Waterloo University."

This is a petition with 2,084 signatures and I support the petition.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There seem to be an untold number of petitions today in the House. I wonder if I could ask for unanimous consent that we extend the petition period for five minutes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent? No.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA LOCATION IMMOBILIÈRE

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

Bill 172, An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act / Projet de loi 172, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location immobilière.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm moving this in order to require the registration of accessory apartments with municipalities in which those accessory apartments are situated and to allow for a fine of up to $7,500 if a person rents out an accessory apartment that has not been registered.

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of 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.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Beaches-Woodbine, I believe you still had a few minutes left.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): When I had the opportunity to speak yesterday, I spent most of my time talking about what was actually contained in this bill and what I thought it would mean to families and friends that I know, to them and their children and the importance of those amendments in people's lives and the importance of these changes to give equality in rights for groups of people.

I want to repeat one part of what I said to stress it again, because I believe every person who supports this legislation needs to state over and over again what is really involved in the legislation, because I hear in many of the petitions that have been read today that members of the public think this legislation is in fact changing the institution of marriage or somehow changing marital status, either under the federal legislation or under the institution of marriage under the church.

1530

Outside of the institution of marriage, we have in our society common-law relationships. In those common-law relationships, if you are in such a relationship and you are heterosexual, you attract certain rights and benefits and owe certain obligations under the laws of our land, the laws of our province.

The amendments that are being put forward to the Human Rights Code and other legislation here in Ontario simply give common-law couples of the same sex the same rights, benefits, and force them to live up to the same obligations as common-law couples of opposite sex. It has nothing to do with marriage. It does not allow marriage; it does not change the institution of marriage. I stress that because time and time again I hear the wrong information being provided to people and I think that it influences the debate in a very negative way.

Yesterday one of the speakers said: "What's the community saying? What are people saying about this?" I thought that I would spend the last five minutes that I have in highlighting that. Just today there was a press conference with religious leaders who voiced support for this legislation, and I want to take a moment just to highlight some of their comments.

The Very Reverend Bruce McLeod, who is a former moderator of the United Church of Canada and former president of the Canadian Council of Churches, supported the legislation and said that "stable same-gender families can be found living quietly and wholesomely in almost any Ontario neighbourhood" and that "on the brink of the 21st century, it is high time that same-gender families are accorded the same access to support, health and pension benefits and inheritance of family property that opposite-sex common-law partners presently enjoy."

Archbishop Ted Scott, the former primate of the Anglican Church of Canada and former president of the Canadian Council of Churches, said that this legislation represents a move towards greater social justice for gays and lesbians in a multicultural and pluralistic society. "The legislation does not give special or additional rights to a special group -- it attempts to establish greater equality for a group which many agree has been discriminated against."

He goes on to say that he believes "that the passage of the proposed legislation will provide greater justice and will not endanger the rights of other persons nor will it endanger the family unit," which he believes "to be of great importance in the maintenance of a strong social fabric."

There are quotes from Rabbi Arthur Byfield, from Reverend James Christie, from Father Tim Ryan, from Dr Joe Mihevc, a Roman Catholic theologian, and from Reverend Brent Hawkes. Religious leaders, church community leaders are coming forward in support of this legislation.

Also today, there was a press conference where there were artists in support of this, musicians and actors, people like Carol Pope, musician; Eric Peterson, actor; Holly Cole, musician; Roger Abbott from the Royal Canadian Air Farce; Robert Priest, who is a poet and musician; Bruce Cockburn, whom we all know, musician; Lorraine Segato from Parachute Club; Jackie Burroughs, actress; Molly Johnson, musician; David Cronenberg, the director; Fiona Reid, actress -- I could go on and on and on -- Ralph Benmergui, comedian; also groups like Blue Rodeo, Moxy Fruvous, Spirit of the West, the Rheostatics. Many, many artists came forward today.

There are also businesses which have shown their support for this by enacting the changes in their own workplaces, people like the city of Toronto; Dow Chemical; the Globe and Mail; the government of Ontario; Harbourfront Centre; the Hudson's Bay Co; the Law Society of Upper Canada; Levi Strauss; London Life Insurance -- I could go on and on and on there -- that support the move in this direction.

Yesterday in Quebec the Human Rights Commission issued a report talking about the violence in the society perpetrated against gays and lesbians and the need to have legislation like this in order to move the yardsticks of human rights. They spelled out a number of recommendations, many of which are contained in the legislation here in Ontario.

A group of Liberals urged Ontario Liberal MPPs to support Bill 167, federal MPs like Jean Augustine, Barry Campbell, Shaughnessy Cohen, Hedy Fry and Bill Graham, and Liberals I know and respect and have worked with like Patrick Johnson, Jack Siegel, people like Pierre Nadeau. Many people are coming forward in support of this legislation. Many people in the community are making their views known.

From my own riding there a couple of letters I'd just like to share with you in the time I have left. One is from a minister who talks about, as he reads in the newspaper and listens to the discussion, growing weary of the discrimination that he hears. He says:

"I am weary of people who cry out that the family is once again under attack and the very fabric of society is coming apart. I have learned that true families are bound together by love, fidelity and self-sacrifice, not by law or social custom. I witness daily families of same-sex orientation who struggle with illness and death. Their love is real, honest and true. They are the same as heterosexual families."

He urges me as his parliamentary representative to vote for justice and to not discriminate against those whose sexual orientation is already protected under the Human Rights Code.

I also received a letter from a 71-year-old woman. She said:

"I fully support the government's bill to give homosexuals legal rights. It is unconscionable that it should be otherwise.

"I, as a 71-year-old mother of three, grandmother of nine, an obvious heterosexual, have enough common sense to recognize that homosexual friends of mine, two couples who have been together for 30 years, should have the same legal rights as anyone else.

"I decry those who use terms such as 'unnatural' and 'un-Christian.' What a travesty. Most homosexuals are good citizens, contributing meaningfully to society. We should support them."

The community is responding. The community is coming to terms with these issues. We need to encourage the public debate and we need to have the opportunity to get the real purpose of this legislation out for people to understand, to discuss, to engage in and to come to terms with. I believe that the majority of fair-thinking Ontarians will support this legislation.

I appreciate the opportunity to have been able to participate in this debate.

Interruption.

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the members in the gallery to refrain from applauding or from any demonstrations. The member for Brampton South, questions and comments.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I want to say that the last speaker's debate on this was civilized; much different than, I hate to say, the speech of the member prior to her, the member for Willowdale, who actually put this debate on a very serious topic into the vein of simply being political one-upmanship. I think that's unfortunate. In fact I'm surprised how the member for Willowdale wound up taking the short straw to use that type of vindictive approach rather than having his leader of the third party, Mr Harris, take that approach.

I find it difficult that when we're discussing matters of human beings, politics has to enter into it. I thought we were all elected as members of this Legislature to represent our communities in a civilized fashion. I'm afraid, having listened to the member for Willowdale -- he's a friend -- I don't know how he happened to get himself into that predicament, but I feel sorry for him.

In any event, I have to say as well that I've listened to much of the arguments here, I've listened to my constituents, and Mr Speaker, I have to say publicly on the record that I cannot support this bill.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): First off, I'll pick up with respect to the minister's comments on a vigorous and open public debate. That probably is one of the most important things we should ensure with respect to any piece of legislation, regardless of the press or regardless of the angst it causes in the public at large.

The question I'd like to ask the minister is, if there is in fact to be vigorous and open public debate, that debate takes place and it's quite clear in the minds of a majority of Ontarians, maybe an overwhelming majority of Ontarians, that this kind of legislation may well be too broad and wide-sweeping for them, does that then mean that we as legislators have a responsibility to listen to the people during this broad and wide-ranging debate?

What I sense from the minister and from some in favour is that you're very prepared to talk about a vigorous, wide-ranging, all-encompassing debate as long as everyone reaches the conclusion you'd like them to reach. The difficulty we're having with this debate appears to be that the majority of Ontarians won't support this kind of legislation. If that's not true, I will stand to be corrected. You can point to examples. But from everything I've read and seen, and if I measure at all by the kinds of letters and phone calls I've received in my office -- and I can't believe that others are not very similar, why my constituency is so different at literally 100 to one, 75 to one.

If we then go out and receive this public input, we then receive and hear from constituents of this province, but then we act completely contradictory to the way they've asked us to act, then what is the point, I ask the minister, of full and open public hearings on important pieces of legislation? Is it not somewhat hypocritical to call for open public debate when you have no intention of hearing from the public?

1540

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm pleased to participate in questions and/or comments and to respond to the comments of the member for Beaches-Woodbine. She gave an excellent presentation, right from the heart. She's a very grass-roots person and close to the community, and it touched me and I'm sure it touched many people who heard her comments.

I want to talk a little bit about the experience in terms of people growing up. There are many partners. There may be some who have a daughter. I know some of my friends who are like that, same sex. I think it's important to think about the emotional and social wellbeing of a child and the point of a child to grow up to be a successful adult. As long as they're in a loving relationship, they need the support of a couple, any kind of couple that can provide the love and support.

What's true is that families are very varied these days. We need an opportunity to express that and to have an expression of that in Ontario society. In the paper today there's an article where it talks a little bit about clinical psychologists from the University of Virginia, where they quote Dr Gottman, a clinical psychologist, and her studies on the homosexual and family relationships.

In that, the consequences of her study suggest that there's no difference in a child's rearing by either a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. There's absolutely no difference in how the child grows up. Either couple can raise a healthy, normal child.

It's important to listen to these and other comments. I believe there are many wonderful benefits that this society can afford from having gay and lesbian parents as well as straight parents. I would like to see an inclusive society where the needs of a child are met.

If we also take a look at the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, it's very important what they say. They say that a child's emotional and family supports are tantamount to the success of a child. I believe that any parent, whether gay or lesbian or otherwise, is able to afford this kind of loving relationship, to keep a positive relationship.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Lambton.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I appreciate the opportunity to be in the Legislature today and have the time to listen to those who have been debating. All bills that come to this House --

The Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry, the member for Lambton, it's questions and comments. Do you have any questions or comments to the speech presented by the member for Beaches-Woodbine?

Mrs MacKinnon: Then I'll go on. I wish to commend the Honourable Marion Boyd, our Attorney General, for bringing this bill forward and I very much appreciate the manner in which the member for Beaches-Woodbine has presented the case. She does it with a great deal of heart and a great deal of feeling and a great deal of common sense; indeed, better ways than I could ever put it.

I would just like to have everybody remember that this bill provides rights for same-sex couples and obligations for those couples, as is being done for people who live in a common-law relationship. The reforms will provide equal rights for the survivors: the pensions, the benefits, the inheritance, the property rights, where necessary, when the contracts have been done for that purpose.

I wish to commend all of my colleagues and all those in this House who are supportive of this bill so that we can rid yet another pocket of discrimination from this province.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine, you have two minutes to reply.

Hon Ms Lankin: First of all, may I say to the member for Brampton South that I think in fact it is very important for us to restore to this debate the tone in which all people can be respected in bringing forth their points of view and ideas on this. I agree with you very much on that and appreciate your pointing that out. I think that today we have an opportunity to set a different tone than what happened in part of yesterday's debate.

I appreciate the member putting his views on the record. I would say to him that I know this is an issue that he reflects on and has reviewed. I know that in the previous Legislature, when Bill 7 was being considered, it was something that he struggled with. I've read his comments in the debate at that time and I know that after much soul-searching and reflection, he actually came from a position of being opposed to the bill to supporting it. I might not be optimistic that it might happen here, but I would hope to talk to him and to continue to ask him to reflect on these issues, and perhaps the same might happen.

To the member for Etobicoke West, you know, you actually do raise a very good point, and I think you hit a nerve when it comes to me. You're right. I do think there is a need for this debate to be heard, and particularly, I guess, the reason I use those words is that I feel very strongly that those people whose rights are most affected by this should have the opportunity to at least make their statements on the public record. That's where I come from.

But you are also right that on this issue, I believe it is an issue of such important principle to me that I think it is one in which legislators should lead. To take your suggestion and to put it in another circumstance, if we were to have tested the waters in the days in which capital punishment was being debated in the federal Parliament and legislators were to have followed the common mood of the nation in those days, we would have capital punishment in this country. Legislators led with positions of principles and beliefs on what they thought was right and set about doing that in the legislative arena. For me, I think that is the approach I would take on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Time has expired. Further debate?

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I want to put a few remarks on the record in this emotionally charged debate. I sincerely wish we did not have to have this debate, because unfortunately battle lines have been drawn and human beings have pitted themselves against each other.

This is one of those moral issues that comes to the forefront for debate from time to time, and moral issues cannot be legislated without encountering a lot of fallout as it happens. Some would say that I am homophobic, intolerant and prejudiced because I do not agree with this bill, which saddens and upsets me because I have always tried to respect all humans everywhere.

It has been said that I don't understand or know the gay and lesbian community. Might I also say they don't know or understand me, yet they too judge and jump to conclusions. They feel, because I don't agree with their opinion on this issue -- at least some of them do -- that I am a hatemonger. I say that I too am a product of my upbringing, my schooling, my environment and my religious beliefs, and I just cannot support this bill.

Surely I have the right to my opinion as well as an obligation to consider and represent the overwhelming majority of my constituents. This, to me, is the way democracy works. Because of my upbringing and my religious beliefs, I believe firmly in the concept of traditional family and I think of family as the traditional mother, father and children. Yes, I know there are breakdowns and single parents out there doing a good job rearing children alone but, to me, you start out with the basic, natural idea of man, woman and eventually children of that union.

My interpretation of spousal benefits is that they are intended to help men and women raise their families. Raising children is a very important thing that we must do carefully in our lives. Spousal benefits were initiated to ease the burden of raising those children the best way we can.

I ponder what is to be the legal definition of "same-sex spouse" in terms of this issue. What constitutes "spouse"? If we grant benefits now given common-law spouses to same-sex spouses, we could well be opening a legal Pandora's box. If all are to receive equal benefits under the law, a roommate qualifies for benefits. If a working man gets benefits for a wife and two children, does it follow that four men or four women who share the rent on a house would also qualify?

The cost of such sweeping reform will be borne by the business community and the taxpayers who support our public service. The NDP government is just continuing to shift its problems on to the backs of business and the average taxpayers.

The truth is that by recognizing common-law marriages, the door has been opened, there is no doubt about that. But if you attempt to recognize same-sex couples, you must recognize all those who live together. The cost of this could be staggering.

1550

In society today, every major problem we face -- rising crime rate, violence, cost of social assistance and burgeoning welfare rolls, illiteracy and the poverty cycle -- can all be traced to the breakdown of the traditional family unit. By that I mean mother, father and children. Yet all levels of government continue to enact laws which encourage the erosion of this family unit.

Society has a vested interest in promoting the family unit in its traditional form. Benefits should be provided to promote the social form of family that benefits society. Study after study shows that children do better socially, economically and intellectually in traditional two-parent families.

Today, homosexuals and lesbians have the same fundamental freedoms and rights under the law as all of society does. They can practise their sexuality, publish literature to promote their views, and protest as a group. But benefits are not rights. If society is perceived to be discriminating in providing these benefits to a special group, I believe it does so in the best interests of society as a whole. But benefits are not rights.

What Sir Winston Churchill once said about democracy can also apply to the natural family, and he said something like, nobody pretends in this world of sin and woe that it is perfect and all-wise. But as a means of raising productive members of society, channelling sexuality and fostering love, the natural family might be seen as maybe even the worst of domesticity, except, of course, for all the others that have been tried from time to time.

In Canadian society, we all have the right under our laws and Constitution to make choices. We don't have the right to force the rest of society to support or pay for those choices. The overwhelming support from my constituents, for my own personal stand on this bill, dictates that I will not be supporting this particular choice, Bill 167.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): The member for Northumberland raises some interesting questions. On the matter of whether this opens up a legal Pandora's box, I suggest that we are trying to solve a legal problem that we are engaged in. Gays and lesbians are fighting for their legal rights and are getting them in the courts, so rather than breaking this down, rather than creating a Pandora's box, I suggest we are solving a legal problem.

When she asks whether four men sharing the same house can qualify, I plead with the member not to cheapen this kind of debate with such examples. It's quite possible that you might find a group that wants to do that to defraud the system, but to use that as an example of why gays and lesbians should not be entitled to the same rights is not a very good one.

In terms of whether we should tax the average taxpayer with yet other costs, I say to her that gays and lesbians pay taxes and they're not entitled to the very benefits into which they're paying. I say to her that the average taxpayer who's gay and lesbian, in all sectors of society, should be entitled to those benefits.

When she says this may contribute to the breakdown of the family unit, I say to her that it is not a fair statement to make, in my view. There is no study that I have seen or read that says by giving lesbians and gays the entitlement they deserve, as heterosexuals, that this will contribute to the breakdown of our society, which is what she has said. To say that benefits are not rights -- I don't know what definition she uses to make that argument. Benefits are rights. This is the right that gays and lesbians are seeking, and I hope she would see it in that context.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise to take a few minutes to support my colleague from Northumberland and to take these few minutes to say I represent Essex South. Essex South is a southwestern Ontario community of God-loving, decent citizens. In all cases, we try and make the right decisions. I say "we," all of us in my constituency. I've said many times that I came to this place to represent the constituency of Essex South. I therefore feel an obligation to listen to those citizens and to bring their voice here.

Who am I alone, one person, to decide what's right and what's wrong? I do know that I was elected to come here and, as best I could, represent in this democratic society of ours the opinions of my constituency. Therefore, in this instance, because of those I've heard from, those I've talked to, the letters I've received, I feel it's necessary that in the end I will have to vote no in the case of this particular bill.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Like many members in this House, I have received a mix of phone calls and letters. I am struck by the fact that many people make reference to the "traditional" family. In reviewing this in my own mind -- and I realize that the member who has just spoken, the member for Northumberland, comes to this from her own personal experience and view, as do all members. We take a look at what we know and the experience we have with our family and friends.

I must admit that within my circle of friends I have someone I went to university with, someone I started university with in 1967, who is a member of the lesbian community, a professional, a hard-working individual, who wrote to me as part of this debate and who obviously has strongly encouraged me to support this legislation, which I do.

But what she drew to my attention was the fact that she and her partner form a family. They are caring, caring individuals. They look after each other and they will look after each other's families, each other's parents. Under these circumstances, to suggest that they do not form a family really does them, and a lot of people in the galleries here and a lot of the people who are part of our own communities, a disservice.

I hope that in the whole discussion about families we do not forget large elements within our own ridings, because gays and lesbians are very much a part of St Catharines-Brock and, I would suspect, Northumberland as well.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I just wanted to commend the member for Northumberland for her very fine remarks and the sincerity she gave to them.

1600

Mr Malkowski: I wish to respond to the comments from the member from Northumberland. I wish to remind the member opposite that when she talks about this issue, it goes to the very core of human rights, the foundations of our society.

I'd like to quote some lines from a press release by the Liberals for Equality Rights. Just let me read to you something they've put out today: "'We are amazed at the depth of the anger out there among party loyalists,' noted George Smitherman," and he's a former executive assistant to a Liberal cabinet minister. "'People are stunned that the leader and her caucus are opposing what is a very basic human rights issue, particularly given Ms McLeod's previous statements in support of gay and lesbian rights.'"

I would also like to include some comments from myself to say that this goes to the core of human rights issues. I'm a little taken aback by your comments. You seem to be reinforcing or encouraging the leadership in your party to -- it looks like the end of anti-discrimination over there. I'm not quite sure how to put it. You claim this is a moral issue. Well, I'll be very honest with you. This is really a very serious moral issue, you're right. It's moral in the sense that it's human rights, and I think a little education might go a long way to changing some attitudes.

It's very important because we have an impact on the future of our society. I want to make sure that children growing up in a future Ontario and a present-day Ontario need not fear discrimination. Many of us have children, many of us have families. We have families and neighbours and grandparents and grandchildren and many aunts and uncles and cousins who may or may not be gay or lesbian. We have to stop and think about their rights and their participation in society. Let's develop a positive society where people feel welcome. Let's take a look at human rights parallels that we have with other communities. I would ask you to please reconsider your position. Think about your neighbours and the people in your community.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to express concern on two decisions you've made just in the last number of minutes. Number one was to recognize five interjections rather than four, which favoured the government party. I also want to express concern about your recognition of the member for Fort York when he was a significant distance from his own seat. I don't begrudge the member participating, but I think this is the sort of tradition that should be respected by the Speaker, whoever is in the chair at the time, and once you start recognizing members of this Legislature when they're a significant distance from their own seat, we have an obligation to express concern.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville is totally right, and I apologize. If I recognized a fifth person, it was not intentional. Second, it's the second time the member for Fort York was not in his seat, and I recognized him once again. I strongly believe the next time the member for Fort York addresses the House, he will be in his seat. For any damage I may have caused, I apologize.

The member for Northumberland.

Mrs Fawcett: Very briefly, I respect the opinions stated by all members of this House, and I hope in turn they will respect mine. Obviously, I cannot agree with all members on this issue, but I really take exception when it becomes political instead of just opinions on this very delicate and important issue.

I will just state again that I will not be supporting Bill 167 because of the overwhelming group of my constituents and my own personal feelings on this. I just cannot support Bill 167.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Cousens: In participating in the debate on Bill 167, I have the role not only as a member for the riding of Markham but also as the human rights critic for the Ontario PC caucus. In reviewing this whole issue, I bring to it a sense of great support for the comments that were made yesterday by the member for Willowdale, Mr Harnick. I also want to express the sense within our own caucus, which has been very free in its discussion and very open in its willingness to look at options and ways of addressing this issue.

We as a caucus were very pleased when we had a candidate running for us in the riding of St George-St David, Nancy Jackman, who is an expressed gay, and we were very pleased that she could possibly have come into our caucus. I personally worked very hard for her to become elected. I think you can continue to have dialogue with respect, and it's very important that that be the case.

I want to preface any and all remarks I make on this very important subject by saying that from where I stand, and certainly in talking with the members of our caucus, there is a determined desire that we not express any form of discrimination against anyone. We support the rights of individuals. We support the need for fairness. We support the fair treatment for all under the law and we strongly oppose discrimination of any kind. It is imperative that people understand that that is the context from which I would like to begin my further remarks.

I have to say something else. This has been one of the toughest debates, certainly in the House, but even outside the House. As one who has been involved in the discussions on this subject since last June when Bill 45 was introduced, I have not found it easy. The reason I haven't found it easy is that when you're dealing with a subject as sensitive as this, it has been tremendously hurtful to me at the personal abuse I have taken from people within this House and outside the House because I disagree with them. That's probably one of the most offensive things in a democracy, that if someone doesn't agree with you, they attack you personally. That is indeed something that undermines all our freedoms, if someone can attack you as a person.

One of the things we have always had, or tried to have, in the House is that we deal with issues objectively. We present our case, but we respect the person who's making their case without having to become personal, so that when we walk out of this chamber we can still look each other in the eye and have a mutual respect and regard for each other as human beings who may have a different point of view. I have sensed that, very much so, with most members of this House, the Premier on a number of occasions where we've come very close on things, but we have at least walked away with a sense of mutual respect.

I want to say today that on TVO the member for St David-St George called me a homophobic bigot, and I didn't have a chance to respond because we were in the middle of a debate. I am still hurt at the fact that there's never been apology for that statement by the member for St David-St George.

Last week in this House the member for Niagara South called me a hypocrite when I was reading a petition that had been presented by my constituents.

On a number of TV shows, people who expressed the view for the gay community have made it very clear that not only do they not like my position, but they do not like me.

I don't care whether people like me or dislike me. I feel it's more important that I stand up for what I believe. As a legislator, I have the right to express those beliefs and I have the right to express them without being called names which are an offence to me, to my parents, to my family and, as well, to my constituents.

I'm tabling that because the one thing I have tried to do throughout this debate, and that I know our caucus has tried to do, is listen to others' points of view, show respect for other people's points of view, express the Canadian way of tolerance for one another. I said this morning at a meeting in my riding -- the Minister of Economic Development and Trade was in my riding and I said to Frances Lankin that I thought she expressed her view very articulately and well yesterday. I say the same now of the member for Northumberland; both with different views, different sides of the fence. I think that's really something that we in this House have to respect.

I am very concerned about the way people are using words as weapons. I will be tabling this with the Attorney General, but there's a document that is circulating now in Toronto. It's an open letter to the lesbian and gay community. I will be passing it on to the Attorney General, because what it is proposing is that actions be taken against churches and others who disagree with that agenda. It is not signed, but I can just say that there are points in here where they're suggesting that people will visit a Catholic church and do certain things. I will not read it into the record. They would also visit a Salvation Army bookstore and do certain things, which again is an offence to other people's freedoms.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: I'll make sure the Attorney General gets it so she can act on it accordingly. If you want to get a copy, I'll see that you receive a copy.

1610

Again, it's the kind of thing where we, as a society, have to protect the rights of all people.

A lot of things have happened since 1986, when the Liberal government of the day brought in changes to the Human Rights Code. One of the things that's happened since 1986 -- and I just have to confess how even in my own life things change. I voted against the amendments to the Human Rights Code in 1986. When Ian Scott, the former Attorney General, asked me if I would vote against them today, I had to say that I would vote in favour of those amendments.

That tells you that a person can have a change in opinion over a period of time, because what those amendments began to do is something that I can accept and strongly endorse: We as a society have to protect the rights of all people. That means the rights for employment, the rights to not be discriminated against, either in jobs or in housing, or in any way. In that sense, I feel that I personally have grown and come to accept the fact that within society one has to have a greater respect. I can now say that I truly and sincerely want to express that in my life, in my living and in my care and treatment of other people.

This House had a chance this last year to debate Bill 45. Bill 45 was a bill that was brought in by Mr Murphy. I understand he's removed it from the order paper. The significant part that I spoke on when he tabled it in the House for debate on June 24, 1993, was the fact that he was going to change "the definition of 'marital status'...by striking out 'of the opposite sex' in the fourth line."

There are many things one can say about marriage, but I referred, in my speech of that day, to marriage as defined in Webster's International Dictionary, as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife." It goes on and explains the definition of marriage.

Part of the real feeling of trying to protect the institution of marriage through that debate and in the months and weeks since has been to protect an institution in our society that has special meaning not only in the eyes of the major religions -- the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and other religions -- but in the idea of how marriage is understood within law -- common law and the law of our land. If a gay couple, a same-sex couple, want to have a relationship, I can respect that, but reserve the title and terms of marriage, as they are understood within the law, as something for a heterosexual couple.

Bill 45 passed in the Ontario Legislature on that day. It was second reading. I want to tie it into the fact that the people who voted for that on that day -- that bill had a far-reaching impact on the future of all these bills that are being amended by the government with this motion. On that bill, we had the leader of the Liberal Party voting for it. I had to check to make sure that she did. On June 24, she did vote for it, along with many others.

Mr Callahan: We are talking of politics, are we?

Mr Cousens: Maybe you should also look at the other people who voted on it. I believe that by approving Bill 45 in principle, it gave tremendous encouragement to the government to proceed with further changes, because Bill 45 was tied up in committee. In order to get the thing out and to deal with it now, the government has come forward with Bill 167.

I am concerned and I think the public should be aware that we don't come here today without a tremendous amount of history that brought us to this place. I'm looking at the letter that was written by the Leader of the Opposition on March 9, when she said, "Please be assured that a future Liberal government will move...swiftly to take the action which I am requesting you to take immediately." That had to do with providing same-sex benefits.

All I'm saying is that people have been given encouragement that certain things would happen. Then, when it doesn't happen, there is tremendous disappointment, there is tremendous anger, there is frustration. It's hard to get the right message out.

I can say this, and if I can speak again on behalf of my caucus, our leader Mike Harris and others: We have not tried to mix our signals. If at times we make a human mistake, I apologize for that. Our serious attempt is to try to deal with the issue so that we deal with fairness, we deal with priorities, and we deal with it all in a sense that shows respect for one another.

I have to say that the fairness test is the one that has really had me concerned with this issue, as to how we would deal with it. The question I have is that same-sex couples are a very powerful special-interest group whose voice is being heard and listened to and who have been responded to by different people giving them different messages, messages of support. I have to accept the fact that same-sex couples have undergone and suffered tremendous abuse within society. I sincerely hope that through the changes in the Human Rights Code that are already in place, we can eliminate that and work to eliminate that even further. But when you talk about fairness, I want to address, in part, one of the two pillars, the economic, and number two, the true fairness itself.

There are many people in our society who have no benefits at all. These are people who are combinations of groups who are living together in homes where they do not have benefits. It could well be a brother looking after a widowed sister and her children. It could be a child looking after an elderly parent. What has happened is that benefits have not kept pace with the needs of the community. There isn't any doubt in my mind that this is not fair economically to those people who do not have the benefit of being able to apply for and receive benefits within society.

We are also dealing with a society that has changed an awful lot since the 1950s, when you had a husband who worked and a mother who stayed at home. Certainly society has evolved and we're seeing society going through changes. But what we're really looking at is if we can do something about benefits that begin to touch upon all people who are under one roof so that we can say that any person who has a need for benefits has a way of claiming them. It wouldn't necessarily and alone and separately be same-sex couples or common-law couples or married couples, but it could also encompass these other people who are families.

If we're going to deal with the situation and the need for benefits in society, let's look at the whole thing, look at the whole subject, and deal with it honestly and fairly so that everyone in society who has a need for benefits can then be considered for them. If that were before this House, I personally would be most anxious to consider participating in that and would want to find a way to support that kind of intention, because it begins to understand how society has a need to make sure there aren't people left out.

By dealing only with a special-interest group, same-sex couples alone, as this bill does, we are excluding the many other groups that are within society that are looking for champions to defend them and protect them. I'm suggesting that this really becomes one of the challenges that we in society and we in this Legislature should have.

So on the fairness test, let's respond to the total needs of society and let us not be thinking only and exclusively, as we are in this bill, of same-sex couples. I think society has to realize there's no longer an Ozzie and Harriet household. We have many variations of what it takes to make up the relationships of different people. A single person can have one rate and someone who has dependants would have another rate. I don't know what the whole economics of the thing are, but I think society is prepared to address that. Those who have the figures would be able to present them and we as a Legislature would be able to see the whole picture.

1620

I also have a concern about what the priority is for the Legislature in dealing with this issue. This has been a point that Mr Harnick made well yesterday, it's a point that Mr Harris has made: We as legislators have a job to do to get people back to work. If you look at the issues that are facing Ontario's economy, that are facing us with law and order issues, with education and with a plethora of issues, are we doing justice to those issues by looking at this single issue right now rather than all the issues that should be on our plate?

I think one of the people I've respected, certainly in my portfolio as human rights critic, has been what Max Yalden is all about. In March 1994, in an interview on Canadian human rights, he said on World Today the following thing. It was in response to providing a report card on human rights and its impact on the Ottawa government. It was raised as it pertained to the Ontario human rights act, and the interviewer, while allowing that it would be a positive step to do something for same-sex couples, asked Mr Yalden about this reform, and he said as follows:

"I would, like any ordinary Canadian, be the first to agree that putting people back to work is probably the number one priority. If you gave me a choice between amending the Canadian Human Rights Act and cutting the unemployment rate by a few per cent, it's pretty obvious what I would do."

I think that we as legislators have a job to do: to get people back to work, to address the concerns that people have out there. If we're going to address the concerns of same-sex couples, let's address the concerns of others who also have rights to be considered as well. Let's not do it piecemeal. If we're going to do it, do it in a more full way.

One of the concerns my constituents have raised has had to do with the question of adoption. That's a very, very delicate issue. The question is often posed in a way that I would like to see raised in a different way. It is sometimes raised as, "Shouldn't same-sex couples have the right to adopt?" Even though the bill before us doesn't specifically get into the adoption procedures and so on, it moves towards that in intent.

The question that society, I think, should be asking is: What's in the best interests of the child? If we take that as the first and most important question, then we as a society have a responsibility to try to find the best home and the right situation for each child and have in our own mind the sense of what the long-term implications are going to be for each child where they're placed. What I'm really saying at that point is that the child becomes the most important gift we have as a society.

I'm not satisfied that a same-sex couple should be held up in equal status with a heterosexual couple and that the implications for those children, as yet to be proven to me, will not have some ramifications in the future of society.

So I'm one of those who would say that respecting the whole sense of the child's need being paramount, respecting the fact that I personally don't fully understand the ramifications of what will happen should we have heterosexuals and same-sex couples on the same level playing field for adoption, I would have to say that that is a matter of concern sufficiently strong that it would prevent me from supporting this bill as well.

Society has to look very carefully at how it makes changes to its laws, to its whole social fabric, so that anything we're doing within society has a long-term look to it. We have that responsibility.

Personally, as a legislator who has tried to listen to the varying views, the cross-section of views, it would appear that there are views that go through the whole spectrum. Who knows where each of us is on it? In my view, it is something where we can continue to talk about it. There may be changes and amendments that can be made to specific laws or parts of the law that make sure we do not discriminate further, but I think we have a fundamental responsibility to continue to place the importance of the child above the needs of specific people who may want to adopt that child.

Therefore, the child's interests have to be paramount, and the future of that child participating in society, with the kind of interests and balance and background that's going to make them strong in society, is something that I think has to be looked at and isn't certainly fully understood at the present time by virtue of the way society is looking at itself and trying to make changes as expressed through Bill 167.

This is one of the toughest subjects that we, as a society, have to deal with. I can look to myself as one who has made changes in my own thinking over a period of time. I want to make sure that I continue to keep my mind open to show respect for other people and that we continue to work to end discrimination.

I want to make sure that we can continue to have our youth and our homes and our families kept strong. I want to make sure that we have a sense of the long-term view on what we do. I feel that we, as a society, will change and will make amendments to different laws along the way, but I believe that marriage is a very important institution and is inviolate.

I believe that the role of parents with children is also something that has a special trust for the future of society. I'm satisfied that at the present time there isn't the evidence that shows me that the best interests of society are being maintained through the changes that would be possible through this bill.

Let us continue to work towards a happy resolution of a most difficult problem. May we do so without rancour, hurt, harm, name-calling. May we do it with respect for one another. Over time, there may be ways in which we as a society can make sure that the discrimination that exists today is removed, but we also have a sense of knowing what our responsibilities are and have defined the areas where there are certain responsibilities to be kept.

I appreciate the fact that I'm having an opportunity to speak in this debate. I've appreciated the fact that I haven't made everybody happy. I think it's the kind of subject where, at the end of the day, I will think I have missed something very important that I should have added in the remarks that I wanted to make today.

I want to make it very, very clear that I will continue to listen to all points of view, and I hope that all of us will, and that as we continue to build our society we look at what it is that makes a society strong and that we continue to show great tolerance and affection and love for one another and that, as we move into the future, we don't do anything to sacrifice the things that will keep us as a very strong society.

I believe that this bill is going too far in the direction which the government has suggested, and I would like to see us vote it down, whenever we vote on it -- I don't think it's going to be today, but probably Monday -- and we can get on to other things. But may the debate continue over a period of time as people begin to deal with these issues. The subject has been opened. I would like to see it closed, at least for the time being, from the Legislature.

1630

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Questions or comments to the member?

Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm pleased to respond to the member for Markham, and I certainly appreciate his words about tolerance and mutual respect.

I had thought that the member for Markham was opposed to discrimination and that's why I was very pleased when he introduced his Bill 55, which would have allowed individuals who found themselves targeted by discrimination in public statements or written documents to lay a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. I was very pleased to see that legislation come forward in the form of a private bill.

I was very displeased when the member for Markham requested that bill be removed from the order paper, and I think many of the members on this side of the House were equally shocked to see that happen.

I think, though, that the member for Markham perpetuates a fallacy, an illusion, when he refers to same-sex couples as representing a rather powerful special-interest group. We live in an inclusionary world and people of gay or lesbian orientation are part of the larger population: Some go to church, some don't go to church; some are black, some are white; some are male, some are female; some are young, some are old. In short, they're all of us.

We in this Legislature represent a microcosm of the larger cross-section of society just as the gay and lesbian population, many of which chooses to live in same-sex spousal relationships, represents the inclusionary nature of the population that we all come from. So to suggest that there's a special-interest group out there that should stand in line I think is an illusory suggestion.

We did take care of many groups with employment equity legislation. Same-sex couples came and asked for protection there. Here's their protection. I'm anxious that it go forward.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I believe I heard the member for Markham make reference to me during the course of his remarks. To the extent that he took comments I made as referring to motives that he may or may not have in opposing this bill, I didn't make those comments directed to him. Rather my concern was about some of the tactics around this issue that I thought were inappropriate, and I thought some of the tactics used by some individuals were homophobic. I do not and will not speculate on the motives of the member for Markham. I am sure his motives are virtuous and I will not comment on them.

What I do want to say -- I hope to get to speak at greater length today; I don't know whether that will happen -- is that of course I will be supporting this bill on second reading and I will be urging all members of the House and members of my caucus to do so as well. I am concerned about what might happen if this bill fails on second reading because of the sense of I think betrayal in the community, and in the community that I represent, by politicians of all stripes. I don't think, frankly, that the handling of this issue by any of us reflects a great glory on us, either in the way in which it has been handled or the tone of the debate to date. I think that's unfortunate.

I hope that we can find in our hearts the strength to rise above the opposition in some of the ridings to vote for it. While it is a moral issue, I view it as an issue of human rights. Human rights sometimes takes courage, sometimes takes an action against the balance of what your constituents might want, and I appeal to that sense of leadership in all members.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm proud of my colleague the member for Markham for having put forward a very balanced view as to how our caucus views this issue. I would particularly direct your attention to his comments about the very unpleasant words that have been used about the fact that perhaps we oppose this legislation, suggestions that we are bigots or homophobes.

I would point to the letter written by Lyn McLeod, leader of the Liberal Party, to the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario, in which she says: "I share your community's anger with the continued inaction of Premier Bob Rae and the continued discriminatory position of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party."

You can't suck and blow at the same time. The trouble is that --

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member to have appropriate language to this chamber.

Mr Turnbull: I don't think that's inappropriate. The fact is that we are opposing this bill for the reasons set forth by both the member for Markham and the member for Willowdale yesterday.

To have such unpleasant things spoken -- I can tell you that I very proudly campaigned with my friend Nancy Jackman in seeking the election in St George-St David, and to hear the comments that have been made particularly, I would say, by Liberals, for example, when they lost the by-election in Victoria-Haliburton, was most offensive to me and offensive to my colleagues.

We are putting forward a position and we are prepared to take the lumps if people don't agree. But the fact is that we believe that rights of all individuals should be equal and I would like to see different legislation put forward. We don't believe this is the appropriate way, but indeed people are disadvantaged in many ways.

Hon Ms Lankin: There was a common theme in the member's comments and the response from one of his colleagues about tone of debate, mutual respect and essentially a complaint about comments that have been made that have been directed at members of the Tory caucus.

Let me say from the beginning that I believe it's important for us to have a tone of mutual respect and for us to debate on the content of the issues and not to throw in extraneous comments, name-calling, rancour etc. But I must insist, in order to give some balance to your comments, that people not think that you are the only offended parties in this House.

Let me tell you about a piece of hate mail that came into my office today that referred to the Attorney General of the province of Ontario as the queen of pimps, homosexuals, gays and lesbians; that talked about the Premier of Ontario as the boss of the unholy alliance between the NDP and homosexuals; that talked about myself and my colleagues as socialists who have raped this province and who are going to bring about a situation where our children are living in a godless and lawless status as chattels of that state; that talked about the fact that my party and my government were bringing about a situation where people were going to be free to seduce children to a different way of life.

I reject that just as much as you reject the comments that have been made. It is important for us to remember that there are people of extreme opinions and people of high emotion in this debate. We can't let that enter into a civilized debate here in the Legislature on either side of the issue.

Lastly, with respect to the issue of fairness and what the status of fairness is, I have to say to the member that I disagree with his characterization that somehow we need to fix a situation for all people living in a common household in order to have fairness. What we are talking about is not the institution of marriage, as he alludes to. I keep stressing this: We are talking about removing the discrimination against common-law couples of the same sex so as to have the same benefits as common-law couples of opposite sexes.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Markham now has two minutes to respond.

Mr Cousens: The member for London South referred to my Bill 55, which had dealt with discrimination. Unfortunately, I did have to withdraw it. I would like to have found a way in which we as a society could deal with hate propaganda. To do so also intrudes on freedom of speech. I didn't have the solution in Bill 55.

I'd like to see us continue to work towards some way of protecting those people who are being discriminated against through violent words, through the very kind of thing the member for Beaches-Woodbine and I have referred to, and others who are suffering that kind of abuse. Some day we might find that in society, or maybe we'll educate our youth so that we don't have to have some of these laws that try to work it through.

To me, we're looking for a balance. There is a sense in which we want to find a higher tone. There are offended parties all over the place. If we as a society can begin to build on the things that make us strong, then fairness will result and anyone who is being shortchanged in society will find redress through a government that has looked at all the possibilities.

Mr Marchese: Help us, Don. How can we do it?

Mr Cousens: I'd say we all want to do it. Maybe it has to do with the system we're under. Our committee structure and the legislative structure are such that we're constantly clashing. You've got party politics and the games that go on. There might well be a way. I've been on public accounts and other committees where we've had an excellent consensus develop and build. Maybe some day we'll have a way that allows us to break some of the walls of party politics and allow people to work more closely together. If I were around here after September 30, I would enjoy that, but I will not be here after that time.

I thank members for participating in this debate. I appreciate the comments that other members have made. Though this debate is far from over, society will have to deal with the consequences, whatever we do.

1640

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Let me start by apologizing to many who have read the paper recently and have perhaps misconstrued or not understood that which I've been trying to say. That's one of the reasons I'm standing up today and debating this issue. I think people know where I stand on the issue. I think it's important for me to get it on the record and, at the same time, apologize if I offended anybody or if I offend anybody during my speech, because it's not going to be as pleasant as many would like it to be.

I hope people can appreciate the fact that there are individuals on this side and on the other side of the Legislature who fundamentally don't agree with this bill and don't agree with what's happening in terms of the debate out in the province, and in my neck of the woods as well, that being Yorkview.

I'm going to talk a little today about why I object and talk about the fact that the traditional family as I see it might change and has a good chance of changing to a degree that I'm not comfortable with. I'm not looking 10 years down the road, I'm looking more along the line of 50 and 100 years down the road. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be comfortable with what I see as a vision, what I see happening in society if this bill passes as it is.

Changing the definition of "spouse" I will speak about as well, how I'm opposed to the bill for that particular reason and how that as well reflects on the traditional family as we know it and see it.

There's been some debate as well in this place in terms of catering to special-interest groups, and I want to say a little bit about that. I'll finish up by talking about how I fundamentally disagree with what's happening and why.

My colleague spoke about the definition of "traditional family" yesterday. The minister clearly said she's unsure of what people mean when they say "traditional family." I wish to respond to that, because it's important for me to give you what I think a traditional family is in society. That in no way reflects on the fact that I haven't lost sight, I must say very clearly, of the human rights aspect of this that some people are talking about. Where I have a problem is where we're changing definitions and where I believe it will change society later on.

In answering the question of the minister who spoke yesterday before we broke, my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine, I believe very fundamentally that traditional families are blood relatives, marriage, of course, traditional marriage as we see it today, and adoption. I believe this bill takes away from what I think a traditional family is. Unless we as a group figure out a way of achieving what people want in terms of benefits without disturbing that fundamental belief that many of us have, this bill will be defeated.

I've said before that I plan on standing up and voting opposed to this unless we can come up with something that many of us can be happy with.

When we talk about extension of benefits, I can understand some of the arguments that have been posed, both in this place and outside this place, but I want to ask this question: If we're going to do this as a body, is this the time to do it, coming out of a recession? Does business agree with us in this place, and will this cost business any more money?

Interjections: No.

Mr Mammoliti: I hear from my colleagues very loudly that the answer is no. Well, in speaking to some of the businesses in my community over the last two weeks, that's not the case. As I see it, it will cost an extra buck to an employer who will have to extend health benefits, an extension part of the benefits, to their employees. If any of you really believe it's not going to cost them anything, I would ask you to go and speak to any of the insurance companies that might be around and ask them what in essence it would cost to have "family" extend.

The fact that this is a moral issue for me certainly stands in the way. My belief in family and what family is, is my belief, and morally I can't agree with changing the definition of "family." Some might argue that I'm not as progressive as others in my caucus and in this House. I will argue that I have got a gut feeling that we'll hurt society as we know it if this passes. I may not be able to prove every argument I stand up and make in this place, I may not be able to convince anybody to change their mind in terms of what they plan on doing, but what I've got is a gut feeling that we'll hurt society and family as we know it.

Interjections.

Mr Mammoliti: Madam Speaker, I'm not hearing what some of the heckles are. They're even coming from my side, and I think that's a shame. I'd like them to be a little louder, at least, so I can respond to heckles and not just murmurs.

I'm not as religious as I should be, and recently I sent around a letter from the Pope to every office. It was a letter addressed to families from the Pope. I don't plan on changing anybody's mind in terms of religion; I'm not the best Catholic in the world and I don't preach to be. But I tell you, there is one message that will hit your desk from that little booklet that's going to arrive shortly, and that is the message of traditional family as we know it. I would ask you to look at that message, as well as some of the other messages that I certainly would want you to read, for instance, the whole area of conception, where we all came from, for that matter, and how relevant that is with what we're talking about now.

In history you could read about what conception means, where children come from, and where the traditional family and this whole area of conception would of course meet. It has been a natural way of life. Without it, none of us would be here. For that reason, I don't agree with what we're talking about -- my own personal view.

1650

Another view comes from a senior minister from the United Church who wrote to me and who talks about God in the letter. It says God "...including homosexuals, without necessarily condoning all behaviour. I do not, in fact, accept homosexual behaviour as legitimate or necessary. Physically, homosexual behaviour is unnatural." You have to excuse me, it's a little blurry. "The body parts involved aren't complementary. They don't fit together. They can't reproduce."

Reproduction is important to some of us in this place. Reproduction is important to society as we know it, and reproduction is that gut feeling I was talking about earlier as well in terms of what can happen 100 years from now or 150 years from now.

Earlier, I said I'd talk a little bit about the change in the definition of "spouse." This bill will alter, if I'm not mistaken, 55 statutes. It will change the definition of "spouse." It will allow gay and lesbian couples the right to adopt children, and of course will extend benefits to their partners.

The definition of "spouse" for me and for the government is husband and wife, male and female; common-law, male and female. We plan to change that through this particular bill, and I can't agree with that. I can't agree with it because, as I've said earlier, it will change society as we know it and it will set a precedent, a precedent I don't think any of us would want to see.

Let me pose a question to the Legislature, and I want all of you to think about this because I think we need to talk about this. If the legislation goes through as planned and if we then open the doors to others to come in and say, "My religion," or my faith or my belief, "says I have to have three wives," or four wives or five wives, should we not then extend benefits to the five wives or the six wives or the seven wives? Is it not our obligation later on to fulfil that request from others who will come knocking on the door after we set this precedent?

If I vote in favour of this, I would have to vote in favour of others when they come knocking on the door as well. How much will that cost, and is everybody in this place prepared to take a look at that when it happens?

I see a number of individuals in this House laughing. They don't believe it might happen. I'm trying to read some of the body language in this place. I can assure you that with the, as I think the statistics are, 111 or 112 different cultures that exist in the province of Ontario at this point, those cultures that believe they could and should have the right to be married five or six times and have five or six wives will come knocking on our door and ask us to extend benefits to them as well.

I'm not prepared to look at that. I'm not prepared to set the precedent at this point. While we could all have our little chuckle over the issue at this point, I think you should go back to your offices and think about the repercussions if it does happen.

Some will argue that the government is catering to small interest groups. While we and the media have made this into a gay and lesbian rights issue, if this legislation were to go through, is it not our responsibility as members to stand up and represent the others who might claim that their human rights are at risk? Should not two sisters or two brothers or a daughter and a granddaughter share benefits? Should an aunt and a niece share benefits? Nowhere in this piece of legislation does it suggest or recommend that this happen. I know for a fact that there are individuals who are asking that question.

Recently, I received a letter from Waterloo --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would ask if it's in order to heckle one's own member.

The Acting Speaker: Out of order. The member for Yorkview, please continue.

Mr Mammoliti: If that's the case, if you can heckle your own member, let me know, Madam Speaker. Let me know quickly.

There was a letter sent to my office from Waterloo, Ontario, from an individual who says -- well, let me read it to you. Halfway through the letter, it starts by saying, "For example, my mother was raised by an aunt and uncle who, due to their distant blood relations, were not considered eligible to be family." That's of course after somebody had died and after they had made some inquiries in terms of benefits. This person is saying, why just the gay and lesbian community? Why not the others?

I will say to you very clearly today, Madam Speaker, that there's a point to be made here. When people say we're catering to a particular group, maybe we are. Maybe we should be looking at it. If our intent is the human rights aspect to this, maybe we should introduce another piece of legislation that would satisfy this individual, that would satisfy Barbara.

I don't think that we're committed to do that. I think that we should be looking at those arguments when individuals do come forward and say that we're catering to a particular group. For that reason, I can't agree with the bill either.

This is going to be very controversial, Madam Speaker, and again I apologize for saying this, but it is my view. It's a view that I hold and if anybody takes offence to the statements, well, maybe we could have a chat later on and I can explain why I feel this way.

Some people believe that the lifestyle in the gay and lesbian community is unacceptable. While I don't know the lifestyle per se, I hear some of the arguments that come forward and I ask myself, does this occur, does it happen? If it happens, should we reflect on the bill when -- and I'll get to the point in a minute, Madam Speaker -- it talks about adoption?

I've had literally hundreds and hundreds of letters written to me on this issue and many of the letters would reflect what I have in front of me in terms of what I call turning sex into a game, a toy. I don't accept it and neither does my community. Some of the language that is in this leaflet will certainly shock many of you in the Legislature, and I'm not going to read it all to you but I can tell you that when we talk about electric torture, whipping, water sports and scat, fisting, cleaning your toys, what does that say to the community, that wide and open community in Ontario that believes that lovemaking has turned into a toy? What does that say? My question to the people who sent me this from the community that we're trying to extend human rights to through this bill is, does this go on? And if it goes on, do you believe that it's fundamentally acceptable to include the adoption of children? What will that do to society as we know it in 100 years?

1700

Many will say: "Well, it's behind closed doors. What happens in my bedroom my children won't even see." I don't believe that argument for one minute. I believe that children pick up from their parents, and if we extend the definition of "spouse" and open up traditional families, those children will be influenced in a way that we'll never, ever forget. That's my argument for opposing this particular part of the legislation.

Some will say: "Well, it doesn't happen, George. It just doesn't happen." Well, how do you explain the lobby that has sent this to me and that have advocated --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Those are the other guys, though.

Mr Mammoliti: No, no, not at all. My colleague made a comment here that it's somebody else. It isn't anybody else.

It is a question that I pose to the community. If it does happen, it's unacceptable to me and I would never, ever agree to the extension of this bill as it is in front of us.

Many arguments as well, and again this may be controversial for a lot of people -- but there are statistics from the Ministry of Health that I've looked at -- talk about behaviour and are very relevant to this if this is the case. When I was speaking to people from the ministry, they made it quite clear that this and the statistics I'm about to read to you are pretty relevant. As a matter of fact, in the leaflet it talks about the prevention of HIV and AIDS.

I want to ask you this question and I want to ask all of you very clearly. In the Ministry of Health statistics from 1981 to the end of 1993, the total reported cases of AIDS were 3,712: 272 were heterosexuals, 107 were blood transfusions, 114 persons contacted it through drug use and 3,190 were homosexuals. Those statistics are frightening to me. Some will argue that they may not be true. Phone the Ministry of Health and find out whether or not they are. I'm pretty frightened by those statistics. That leads me to believe that it is pretty prevalent in the homosexual community. Another question: whether or not some of you now find it acceptable behaviour. I don't.

Madam Speaker -- or Mr Speaker, I'm sorry. I didn't see you come in the room --

Interjections.

Mr Mammoliti: It's not relevant, Mr Speaker.

I only have five minutes left and I'm not sure that I'll take up all the time, but I would argue that the majority of the people in Ontario would agree with some of the arguments that I've brought forward today and that they would ask this House to look at what the majority of the people in Ontario would want.

I got another letter recently from an individual who supports the bill, and this person -- her name is Jennifer -- says to me very clearly:

"You have used your power and authority in a totally disgusting way. Many people who may look to you for leadership will now feel justified in their destructive views about gays and lesbians. They can give vent to their hatred and fear in many ways, from teasing to vicious beatings."

Over the last two weeks I have knocked on a lot of doors in my community and since the debate has started have certainly tried to get some feedback in terms of what my community wants, and I am thoroughly convinced that this individual is right. I should use my leadership, and I should vote with my conscience. I should do what my community wants, and my community very clearly has said to me they don't like what's in the bill. They want to see some changes. They don't like it the way it is.

That's leadership. I got elected in 1990 to do that. That's leadership, in my opinion. I'm trying to show that. I'm trying to do what I think is proper and what I think is right in this House, and quite frankly this Jennifer from Toronto, who doesn't live in my riding, certainly doesn't know what my riding wants. Another person wrote to me, from my riding this time, and is quite clearly saying that they don't want government to legitimize this type of behaviour.

Lastly, some will argue that some MPPs in this place are utilizing this place for political reasons and using this forum, especially this issue, to grandstand. I assure you that's not what my intent is. My intent from the start and my opinion from the start has been one and has been for years that when I see letters coming from the leader of the Liberals, who talk about one thing one day because it suits their needs for a by-election in St George-St David, and then after the election's over and they have their MPP elected, they have decided to abandon that MPP and say: "Forget about it. We went with you, we walked door to door with you, we talked with you. We promised" -- I have a letter here that says that if the Liberals were elected, "I'm calling on you to heed this direction and take action now to recognize the rights of same-sex couples."

Not a few months later does the Liberal leader do an about-face because of political reasons, because she probably knows the majority of Ontarians disagree with what the bill is talking about, as I do. She has completely done a flip-flop. I pose the question to the Liberals: What happened to Humpty-Dumpty when Humpty-Dumpty sat on the wall?

Mr Bisson: Is this going to be like the Three Little Pigs story?

Mr Mammoliti: Well, it's almost like the Three Little Pigs story, but I think it's quite relevant. Humpty-Dumpty fell off and cracked his shell. Then how many king's horses and how many king's men did it take to put Humpty back together again?

Flip-flopping on an issue like this, sitting on a fence on an issue like this, will not gain any respect from anybody out there. You take a stand and you stick with it and you deal with the repercussions.

1710

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Yorkview for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): First of all, in the very brief time that I have, let me say, without any confusion whatsoever, I'm in total disagreement with the statements made by the previous speaker.

I don't know how some people think that removing discrimination against some people in our society diminishes the status of others. Frankly, I hear the argument over and over that if I give rights to this group, it takes away the rights and the status of the traditional family. I don't believe that for a second. I believe that you can give rights to people in our society and not diminish the status of others.

But while we're on the subject of the traditional family, I'd like to ask the previous speaker to explain to me how he deals with the facts, and the facts are simply this: Gay and lesbian individuals in our society are someone's children. They are someone's brothers. They're someone's sisters. They're someone's parents. How does this traditional family view deal with that fact?

The other issue that I think is extremely important is that this is not a Metro Toronto issue. There are gay and lesbian people in every riding of this province. There are gay and lesbian people in my riding of Sarnia, and there are a lot fewer because my community, like many others, discriminates. It does subtle things. It makes people uncomfortable in their own communities, and I know of gay and lesbian people in my community who are past residents who are now living here in Toronto because they could not live at home.

If people in my constituency expect me as an elected member to gay-bash, to drive people out of my communities, to continue to discriminate against people in our society, they'd better find someone else to do that.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): First of all, I'd like to congratulate the member for Yorkview for not being his usual belligerent self.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Is John here?

Mr Sola: That's right; it's a miracle.

At the same time I'd like to congratulate the NDP caucus for allowing him to speak what is essentially heresy for the party. Perhaps democracy is returning to this House when a party, and a governing party at that, allows dissenting views to be voiced. So congratulations there.

I would think that his remarks were quite thoughtful up to a point, but they were very courageous because the member for Yorkview opened himself up to ridicule, abuse and labelling. That is something that is not very welcome for any member of society, but particularly one in a high-profile position in a community such as an elected official. It takes a lot of courage to voice opinions that may not be acceptable but that the person believes to be true.

I would like to point out some other things. He mentioned other cultures living in Ontario who believe in polygamy, but there are cultures that are of North American origin that have a Christian sect or denomination which also allow polygamy. So that question is not as wild as it seems.

I understand how overwhelmed his constituency staff and his office staff are by the overwhelming response to this question, because I can tell you, yesterday it got so bad that I could not get through to my constituency office. I had to get an emergency service to get some information from my constituency office. The response has been just overwhelming and it has been about 100 to one against this legislation.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I too would like to comment on some of the remarks made by the member for Yorkview, specifically on the premise that we should be permitted to deny benefits to couples who cannot produce offspring, cannot produce children. I would like to point out that, if we follow that logic, it means that couples who are unable to have children or couples who choose not to have children or senior citizens who are past their child-bearing years who choose to seek the comfort and the companionship of marriage, all of these couples should then be denied pension benefits, medical rights and their human rights. I'm afraid I don't understand that logic.

It's also important to say that human sexuality is a precious gift of love between two human beings. To ascribe the abuse of that to one group fails to acknowledge that there is pornographic material that portrays heterosexual acts. If we are concerned about pornography, then we must be concerned about all pornography. I think many people in here will recall growing up with erotica. It's readily available: Playboy, Penthouse, Playgirl. It depicts heterosexuality. I think to comment on one group and not another is leaving a serious omission that we need to address.

Lastly, I would urge all members of this House to indeed heed the words of the member for Yorkview and not give way to hatred and fear.

Mr Malkowski: I wish to congratulate my brother for expressing his viewpoint. I respect the way he's done it, but I'm also honoured to be able to share my own view. I'm a very, very proud Catholic father of five children myself. I wish to inform people that I come from a traditional family but I believe in the importance of my children knowing I'm also a very strong supporter of the example of leadership to end discrimination against all people in our society. I want my children to learn those values, and that's why I support the extension of same-sex benefits.

I believe that human rights are a basic foundation in our society and I want my children to value those things. I want my own children to know that their dad did his best on same-sex. One day maybe one of my own children could become lesbian or gay. Who knows? Who's to say? I want to prepare a society that may be ready for them. I think it's important to send out a positive message for people so they can develop a positive self-image of themselves.

I don't understand how anyone could vote against simple legislation which would end discrimination. If you have children, how could you possibly want them to grow up in a world where they might be discriminated against? I think it's important that as parents we lead the way to end discrimination. The extension of same-sex benefits is one of those ways.

I believe that gay people are good parents, just as straight parents are good parents. I'm a proud Catholic father, I come from a traditional family, and that's why I'm supporting this legislation. I have children and I'm very, very proud of that fact and I'm very happy and proud to share that message with my fellow Catholics and my fellow constituents.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Yorkview has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Mammoliti: In response, I want to thank the member for Sarnia, the member for Mississauga East, the member for Middlesex and the member for York East for their responses.

The member for Sarnia talked about traditional families. I'm not sure whether he referred to me as a gay-basher or not. I hope he didn't; I didn't quite hear it. But if he did, I take great offence. I am not a gay-basher. I said earlier that I understand the human rights component of this, but I can't agree to the extension which we're looking for, and that's what I talked about today in the Legislature.

I want to thank the member for Mississauga East for his comments, and the Premier for allowing us a free vote on the issue, it being so controversial. I too have great respect for the Premier for doing that. But I would also ask the member across to talk to his particular leader and talk to her about swaying on the issue and dealing with this as perhaps a feeling in your heart or a gut feeling as opposed to politics. This is not an issue of politics.

To the member for Middlesex, I'm sorry if she got my message wrong. I did talk about adoption and I did talk about how I felt that adoption is included in the traditional family. Perhaps Hansard might be able to clear that for her if she has misunderstood me.

As to pornography, I thought the discussion today was in terms of the gay and lesbian community, and I spoke very clearly about some concerns I had from literature that was sent from that community to my office.

I want to thank the member for York East for giving me his opinions. I take his opinions to heart. I wish I had more time to respond, Gary, but the time's gone.

1720

The Speaker: Is there further debate?

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): When the issue of same-sex family benefits first arose in this House more than a year ago, I voted against it. A fortiori will I be voting against the government's sweeping attempt to redefine the meaning of "spouse" in all provincial statutes. My reasons, briefly stated, are as follows.

Family benefits are just what it says: benefits, not rights. Benefits are special rewards that society bestows from time to time on a select group for various and changing reasons. They are clearly not legal entitlements to which everyone can lay claim.

Some couch the current debate in the noble language of human rights. In my view, this is a deliberate but misguided attempt to reshape reality as it is perceived by most people. It is using the power of words to build a strange new world in which age-old concepts of human relationships are radically altered.

I do not know when, precisely, governments decided to recognize through family benefits the special burden of child-rearing and the sacrifice that many women traditionally have made in this regard by giving up employed-related benefits. Whether these reasons still hold today is open for debate. One might well ask under what conditions family benefits should be awarded today and whether it still makes sense to grant them in the first place.

Clearly, however, this position is fundamentally different from the approach that calls for family benefits because homosexual relationships should be seen in the same light as heterosexual ones.

As I see it -- a view that, by the way, is shared by most of the constituents who have contacted me on this matter -- the mutual attraction between a man and a woman is the most basic paradigm of human otherness. I'm using the expression "human otherness" in this context as an inadequate but unavoidable translation of the powerful French term "altérité." The male-female relationship is the archetype of what it means to be different from one another, of what it means to joyfully accept this difference and of what it means to work creatively through this differentiation towards the eternal new beginnings of child-rearing.

The state has a fundamental interest in recognizing, protecting and even encouraging this elementary bipolar relationship, this most fundamental openness towards what is different from our own selves. To claim that a man-man or a woman-woman sexual relationship should be equated with heterosexual relationships is to deny the primordial value of sexual differentiation, and I'm not prepared to support such efforts.

Some people may accuse me of homophobia. If this questionable word has any meaning, it means fear of sameness, "homos" being the Greek equivalent of our English adjective "same." In this sense, I am indeed fearful of sameness, for I believe strongly in the endless enrichment that comes through the ongoing challenge of male-female relationships.

For the love of the Homo sapiens, the mensch, the human being who finds its fullest expression not in woman alone, not in man alone, but only in their mutual complementarity and in its perennial offspring, the child, I have voted in the past against the ideas expressed in Bill 167 and I will do so again in the future.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Nepean for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I can't help but think back, when I listen to some of the debate and statements made in the House, or imagine some years ago, actually not all that long ago, when all male parliamentarians were debating and discussing whether women should be allowed to vote and whether women indeed could be looked at as persons. Not that long ago, that was the big debate of the day and I can't help but think that a lot of the language, phrasing and rationalizations were used in that debate as well.

When I think back to that and think of where we are now and how over time it became accepted -- but it was a raging debate. There were those who thought that women didn't have souls and couldn't participate in these kinds of debates. Now there are women here in this House. There are women taking part in all aspects of our lives, not only bearing children.

Obviously, people here in this House know where I stand on this issue. I guess I see it as my duty, because I feel so strongly about it, to try to be as rational as I can -- not too emotional, although it's hard, but as rational as I can -- to remind people that this is a human rights issue. It's not couched in those terms; it really is. The courts are telling us that.

It's been said time and time again that the courts are making these decisions for us anyway. It's happening very quickly. We can be dragged kicking and screaming into it, spending millions of taxpayers' money, or we can do the right thing and get on with this now.

Mr Bisson: I'd just like to respond to two points the member made in his speech; the first one being that benefits are just that, they're benefits, and benefits are sometimes things that are granted from time to time to society when society chooses. I would tend to disagree with that. I would ask the member to reflect back on a number of issues that our society in North America and here in Canada have had to deal with over the years, everything from the civil rights movement on. If we were to take that attitude, and if our Constitution and our charter were to take that view, it would be very much a bad day in Canada and I think a bad day in North America, because I think a lot of the rights that people have attained over the years would have never happened. How we began to change society and how we got society to see the issue for what it really was, is that people -- thank God there was a Constitution there and a charter -- were able to challenge those decisions over the years.

The other thing he talks about is that this is couched as a human rights issue and we're just couching it that way because we're somehow trying to do something subversive. This is not couched. The human rights -- when you take a look at what's happening regarding the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court of Appeal of Ontario, and you take a look at the Human Rights Commission, they have all very clearly come back and said, "According to the Constitution of our country, according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other statutes, clearly a society cannot deny people rights that they have attained under that Constitution."

I beg to argue with the member; he is dead wrong on this. This is a question of rights. What has happened over the years is that many people have brought their governments and their employers to court over a number of the issues that we're debating within this bill. It's because of our charter and because of the laws of the land that the courts have ruled in the way that they have. I would ask the member to think about that when he's responding.

1730

Mr Callahan: The issue that's raised in trying to put this on a level of human rights I think is wrong. If we're talking about human rights, we should start talking about the human rights of children. The courts have been the protector of children since day one. That's with heterosexual couples. I've had many cases of custody where I've had to tell my client, "It's not your wishes, it's what's in the best interests of the child." I have a grave fear that with the bill that's been put forward by the Attorney General the courts would lose that paramount and down-through-history role of being the parens patriae in looking after children.

I suggest to you that when a government brings in a bill the way this government brought this bill in and tries to amend the number of acts it has done without one iota of looking into what impact that will have in terms of that traditional role of the courts being able to be enforced for the rights of the children -- and I think we're forgetting this in this debate. This debate is not talking about those rights of the children.

I have to say that it troubles me greatly, because we see the Conservative Party obviously using this in a political way. This will become a crucifixion of human beings who perhaps are homosexual -- gay or lesbian -- who are going to be dragged through the mire in the next provincial election. That troubles me. That is something that legislators should not do.

This is not a political issue. This is an issue dealing with the rights of children, the traditional rights of children, the role of the courts in dealing with children. I suggest to you that you had better take a hard look at these acts, because I don't think anybody, including the Attorney General, has absolutely any idea what the impact of this amendment, this gross amendment, to all of those acts will have on the children of this country.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): We know in this House that the most difficult debates we have to face are those involving the moral and ethical issues of our times. I believe that this bill in fact is clearly one of those issues and one of those debates and it reflects the ethical values that are held by and reflected by the members of this House.

I believe the member for Nepean has expressed in his place and has put into a theological and moral context his views and the views of many adherents of his position. He's expressed them well. They have been based on a fundamental theological moral basis, and that is what he has put before the House.

In my own view, the member has given through his remarks an indication of something that I believe, that fundamental ethical change through political vehicles such as this Parliament must take place incrementally as changes in society occur and as those ethical changes are taken into account. My constituents tell me we're not there yet, as the member for Nepean tells this House his constituents tell us we're not there yet.

I appreciate the tone of the debate that the member for Nepean introduced into this discussion. I think the more thoughtful ethical views that are put on to the floor of the House, the better.

The Speaker: I acknowledge that the honourable member for Fort York was surprised that he did not catch the Speaker's eye. Indeed the normal custom is to go in rotation, and that was broken inadvertently by the Chair, for which I apologize, but we have had four people and it would take unanimous consent to allow a fifth one. Agreed? I recognize the honourable member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: I just want to respond to the member for Nepean on the whole issue of benefits. He advances the same argument as Ms Fawcett from Northumberland. Both of the members have stated that benefits are not rights, and Mr Daigeler said that they're not legal entitlements nor should they be confused with legal entitlements.

The fact of the matter is that we as heterosexuals have rights and entitlements accorded by law and gays and lesbians do not. By the same laws that discriminate against them, there are laws that give me entitlements. It is true that laws entitle people. What we're saying through this bill is that they should have the same entitlements as the rest of us. The courts are moving in that direction and there are a number of cases that they're probably aware of, that we're aware of, that begin to give justice to people who are lesbians and gays.

There is the Leshner case, where a lawyer challenged the Ontario government's pension plan as discriminatory under the Ontario Human Rights Code for not providing survivor benefits to his same-sex spouse. The board, in hearing that case, ordered that the code be interpreted to ensure that same-sex couples are given the same benefits as opposite-sex couples and that the government must provide survivor pension benefits to same-sex spouses within three years of the order.

The fact of the matter is that human rights commissions are increasingly ruling on this and are giving entitlements to gays and lesbians and I suspect the courts in time, as the statutes are challenged, will do the same. What we as politicians are saying is, let us lead and not wait for the courts to continue to provide those entitlements that they should have by right.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Nepean has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Daigeler: Indeed, I think the crucial question here is, are we talking about a human rights issue or not? I gladly accept the fact that the notion of human rights, what constitutes a human right, has been a developing one. There has been a significant evolution of what are considered human rights or not.

It may well be, although I personally doubt it very, very much, that in years down the road the majority in our democracies will look at this issue as a human right, because that's how, in a modern society, we make these kinds of decisions and live with these kinds of decisions.

We decide through the democratic process, not through the courts but through Parliament, through the elected members of the people, what are considered the fundamental values of our society. Therefore, I feel that we have to lead on this issue and we have to decide on behalf of the people whom we represent what are the most fundamental values of our society, and it's up to the courts to interpret that will. The will of the people is expressed in this Legislature and not through the courts.

If the people feel that I or all of us are not expressing the will of the people, then they will vote us out of office. These are the principles of our modern democracy and of our modern political system that we're operating under and that we have all acknowledged and accepted. In this regard, I put forward the very strong view that this bill is not a human rights issue, it's a benefits question, and therefore I will be voting against it.

The Speaker: Is there further debate?

Mr Malkowski: I'm very, very proud today to stand in my place and join in this debate on second reading of Bill 167 on the extension of same-sex spousal benefits. I believe this is a very important foundation, that being human rights in our society, and to be very clear that yes, it's still a moral issue. I want to share with you a little bit about how I feel and why I think this is so important, not only to me but also to the people of York East. I wish to show that and give my feedback to the people of my constituency and to the people across the province.

The message we would give here is that our New Democratic Party government has been accountable in principle, in our commitment and our belief in inclusionary society, to end and to stop discrimination. That is a very key fundamental value. This is a part of our human rights agenda. It's also cost-effective inasmuch as it saves on legal expenses and costs that would be incurred in court in order to fight this.

1740

Thirdly, the economic and emotional benefits to people from a human rights perspective are great. Traditionally in history, the Ontario society has seen many, many, many different kinds of changes. There are children who come from gay and lesbian parents, children who are gay and lesbian themselves and from many different kinds of groups. People have different experiences, not only within that community but many other minorities as well who have faced discrimination in this province.

This is very important, that the extension of same-sex benefits address the discrimination that gays and lesbians have felt and that the lives of those people be reflected in society: that it becomes an inclusionary society, that we include all the groups in society. This is what's important. I am very passionate about this. I want to make sure that we have all members of society to take their place in the sun and to stand equally among each other, no one over anyone else. It's an equality rights issue.

It's very important when it comes to accountability that we show leadership in this place. We have seen the best of traditions in Ontario developed and we have seen the foundations of human rights issues emerge in this province and within Canada. We should be proud of that. If we look back at the history of the development of human rights, we can talk a little bit about the issue.

I will go on to explain that the Canadian Constitution, when we implemented the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was passed by the federal Liberal government in 1982. Prime Minister Trudeau was the Prime Minister at the time. This established for us legal protection for people. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and equality issues were addressed in there for the choices.

The Ontario government, at the time a Liberal government, in 1986 adopted the private member's bill from the member for Ottawa Centre, Evelyn Gigantes, who introduced a private member's bill, an amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code to include sexual orientation within the Human Rights Code. This was passed, and the Liberal government of the day saw fit to pass it.

These are remarkable steps in the history of the human rights evolution of this province, both passed by Liberal governments. This is not a partisan issue. We should be able to face this as legislators and to show the emergence of guarantees of human rights in this province. We have a progressive agenda. We have a history behind us. We should be able to build on that. Today we are asking again to build on that and to continue to build on that.

One of the hardest things for me and one of the things that takes me back is some of the opposition coming from that Liberal Party. They seem to be backtracking very quickly. I thought we had helped to grow within human rights in this province, and they had a role as a political party in this province. I wanted to see the end of discrimination -- this is an important point -- and I would ask them to join in that.

Whether you are a Conservative, a Liberal or a New Democrat, I thought we were all here to work together for the betterment of people and to stop discrimination. Is that not a point and a purpose of the things we do here? Is that not a purpose, to help educate those who may misunderstand so that we can see the end of discrimination in Ontario?

I want to talk a little bit about the cost-effectiveness. As you all know, and as we see within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, respect of individuals and their sexual orientation is included in the Human Rights Code. It's very, very clear where we need to go from here, and society knows where we need to go from here.

There are many, many private businesses and companies which have already taken the lead on this. They are aware. They know how important this is in terms of human rights and the extension of these legal rights to people. I am happy to name some of those corporations and companies that have shown some leadership.

I can give you some examples of those who are not afraid to move ahead: the Hudson's Bay Co, Levi Strauss of Canada, Dow Chemical, IBM, the North American Life Assurance Co, the United Church of Canada, the Metropolitan Toronto Police, the Globe and Mail newspaper publishing company, the Toronto Sun, the Canadian Auto Workers and many others. There are many names of many companies I could go on to list.

The point is that these people provide coverage and same-sex benefits to their employees. They are showing leadership. They know that we as a Legislature do not want to get into spending money fighting things in courts. They've shown leadership that way. They have made a wise decision, and we can follow that lead as legislators. This is an important thing, to include same-sex benefits.

I would say to you, it does make sense to pass this. Our government has accepted its responsibility. We are accountable to the people. We have asked in these tough economic times to save money. Why would we continue to spend money fighting something that is going to be? The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is there. It is a goal for us to build on. It is something for us to respect, that we may respect each other. This is an important value that we can pass on to each other and to our future generations.

I'm very proud of the history of our government in showing leadership. We can show the way to other jurisdictions across Canada, that we should be the first in Canada to do this. We should be proud of this, that we can lead the way in human rights reform.

I also want to talk a little about the economic and social benefits, and how, by respecting what I believe are the key important messages when you end discrimination, you have a better society, where people are better able to freely mix and to participate. That has economic benefits if all people are participating equally in society. This is another basic belief I hold. I want to see equality rights extended so that we have a stable society, so that people can support each other in business and in play, and that we have solidarity in the business of respecting each other and tolerance. Those are things we can foster, and Ontario should be a place for those things.

The saving of finances from this comes also from those partners in those households where maybe gays and lesbians -- if someone were to die, for example, they need the death benefits. There are property rights that need to be addressed, there are pensions that need to be addressed for people as homes are broken by a death. Why would we want to see someone left without any kind of income, having to go to welfare, when spousal benefits will go a way to protect the income of those people after they've lived in a relationship? They pay taxes. We need to make sure that for society's interests, people are protected and they have a means of supporting themselves. These are some of the cost-effective ways this legislation will go to help preserve a stable society. I think that goes a long way.

I find it very hard to believe there are groups within the Conservative Party whose philosophy is -- of course, we know where they come from. They are very concerned with big business and fiscal conservatism. We know that. So it makes sense to you to follow the lead of what business is already doing. Look at what those companies have done. I would suggest to you that you reconsider your position on same-sex benefits. Why would a party that represents the interests of big business, when business is already doing this and you look at the business practices across the world, not take a hint from them and look at this? I don't understand why you would be opposed to this, but we'll let it stand for itself.

If you wish to see more spending happening in court costs and legal challenges, I guess that's your position, but I would challenge you. I would just throw that question out to you. I don't think the Ontario public would want to see us spending money in the courts on something when we can pass this in the House and save money for court challenges. Court challenges will come. It will cost money. We're trying our best to preserve money in these tough times and to spend money wisely. I'd ask you to rethink, sirs.

Another very important question for all members of this House to think about is the question: Are gay and lesbian people, in your view, responsible enough and willing to accept the responsibilities and obligations in society? Do you not think so? It's a question I would pose to you. It's something I ask, and I would ask the opposition members to reconsider. I believe they are. I would ask you to respond to that in your comments to me.

1750

This is an important foundation in terms of human rights for our society, because yes, gays and lesbians and the community are ready. They have always been ready to take on the responsibilities and obligations, just as we are. They are willing, they are keen to get on with their lives and to join in society as equal members. It's very clear. It makes sense to see people, all of our citizens who pay taxes, no matter who they are, have their place in society and their rights guaranteed. It can't be any other way. This is something we wish to encourage and this is a question I would suggest to all of you, that you reconsider the place of people in society.

I would like to talk a little about a letter sent from the Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Lyn McLeod. It was a letter sent to the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario. The letter was dated March 1993, and in her letter she says, "Let me be perfectly clear that we must end discrimination against lesbians and gays." She goes on to say in her letter, "It is my strong belief that human rights are not up for debate and that the Ontario Legislature should be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom... should be amended."

It's very clear in her letter that the Leader of the Opposition once supported it, and now I'm finding it very difficult to understand how the Liberal Party, in such a short time, given its history, which was very prominent in human rights traditions in terms of Prime Minister Trudeau and what he did in 1982 in instituting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- you have so much to be proud of. Amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code for sexual orientation were included by the private member's bill of Evelyn Gigantes, the member for Ottawa Centre. Liberal governments have progressively always been there.

You had a by-election and you campaigned on this in the riding of St George-St David. You went forward and you told the people of that riding that you supported these things, same-sex benefits. You've been very clear, and now today we find a different story, a big change, a complete reversal of where you've been. You're sending a confusing message to people. I'm not so sure if that's the kind of leadership one might look for, that you'd look to take advantage of people in an opportunistic way. I suggest to you that you have a very proud history and that you should go back to that. Don't backpedal on this, please. I am here to encourage all of you to rethink.

I'm very proud of the New Democratic Party and our tradition and our beliefs. We've rolled up our sleeves, and we've taken some heat for this, but we will continue to fight against discrimination wherever it may be. I would encourage all of you, and I respect the opinions of all the people here in this place, but I would ask you again to think of the model we would send to people if we were to reform human rights, to show some leadership, because the results of doing that would be profound.

Same-sex benefits in the amendments and the legislation send a positive message to all people, most of all to our future generations and to those children who will look and see what we did in this place, that yes, they can be proud to stand in a jurisdiction that ended discrimination, all forms of discrimination. You should be proud to have a role in that, that we can give a legacy of hope to our younger people coming along and to our future generations, not only our children but our grandchildren and their children.

We want a society where everyone feels safe and has an opportunity to be treated equally. I believe we have an excellent opportunity here to do that. We have an opportunity here to leave a legacy of positive self-esteem among all people, that we have a society that accepts people no matter who they are. That's a positive message to send to people. That's a positive message for communities to have. As we look at our history, we have a very proud record in this province. Maybe in 50 years they will say: "Look what they did. Isn't this wonderful? We won't forget the good things this province continues to do in showing leadership in the country and for all people and for all provinces."

I would hope we could encourage further development and further leadership in human rights and in the movement thereof, because it can only have a positive impact on communities in both social and economic benefits. We want to see an equal society where all are included, no matter who the group is. To be an inclusive society, that includes gays and lesbians. Of course it does.

I want to also mention and ask you to think a little bit about something from my own experience I'd like to share with you, if you don't mind. When I went to a school system here in Ontario, there were so many comments. People would write articles and people would talk about, "Gay and lesbian people are sick." It's amazing how you get that information, but you have an opportunity with friends, by meeting other gay and lesbian people -- I happen to have friends who are gay and lesbian -- and you know what? They just have a different way of being in some ways. It's just another expression of life. That's all that is.

They pay taxes. We share the same food. We share the same society with you, so hate is for what? Hate's the fault; it comes from misunderstanding and fear and possibly ignorance, but I would suggest fear.

Sometimes we come to things with all kinds of pre-conceived ideas; that's the kind of thing we need to stop. We need to stop the fear, we need to stop the confusion. We need to show some leadership in this place to end that kind of misguided misinformation that may come about.

Having legislation like this can go a long way to educate people. Gay and lesbian people are just like anyone else. There are differences in communities, and that's okay. It's okay to be different.

As we extend benefit rights to people, yes, once again we are showing a difference and a respect for those differences. We need to be keen on this because again, through our lived experiences, we know. Speaking for myself and knowing the disabled community, there are gays and lesbians who live in that community. Where would they be if we take away rights? Same-sex partners: What do they do? They provide a foundation of love and support, not only financial. Without that, how can many other people proceed with their lives, without a financial support? Gay and lesbian people who may be disabled being denied that just creates further hardship and further oppression. People are tired of living on the sidelines. Let's pull people off the sidelines, including gay and lesbian disabled people. People want to live in society and be included.

Again, I ask you to help us do that, to pull people together and to have a message to everyone and to parents who have children, whether they're disabled or not, that it's okay to have someone who's different. It doesn't matter if you have a different life or if you look different or you happen to be shaped differently or have a different colour. All members of this are all members of a community and we come together and we are Ontario. This is something we need, and we should be proud to promote in this place and in the country and that we can be that model for the world stage to look at. Yes, Ontario has a reputation of being progressive and open. I believe passionately in these things.

I wish to wrap up. One of the most important foundations is, of course, human rights, and gay and lesbian people are responsible. They are ready. They are waiting to take their place in the sun. That's a fundamental question I would throw to all of you to reconsider, those of you who are opposed to this legislation, to think about extension of rights. Don't misunderstand and don't let fear guide you.

There are many parallels with again, as others have mentioned, the debate on women's rights. People will say, for adoption rights, they are afraid this is somehow going to be a threat to things. I would suggest to you people that the recognition of same-sex benefits and adoption of a child is not a threat to the family.

The United Nations in its Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes that it's important that children need -- what? Most of all, a good, emotional, stable, loving foundation. That includes financial considerations as well as social and emotional needs. No matter who those parents are, if someone can provide a loving, caring home for someone, who are you to deny that to someone?

Based on those experiences, it would be a wonderful opportunity if we could talk to other children who are raised by gay and lesbian people, hear their stories. There are statistics that show those raised by gay and lesbian people don't turn out any differently than your sons or daughters. I would suggest to you, as any other child, they are just as happy and socially and emotionally adjusted as anyone. So I would challenge members, do we then and can we give love to children? Of course we do -- my own children, my own daughters and sons.

If someone, let's say, has an uncle, can an uncle then give love to a son or a brother? That's same-sex in a sense. That's a loving relationship. Just because one happens to be gay, why would you then suppose that they can't offer love to someone else or be supporting or give a hug? What is the harm in that? What is the difference between someone, just because they happen to be gay or lesbian or straight, being supportive and loving to someone in an emotional way? Don't let fear misguide you. That is my point.

It's very, very important that we support people in these relationships. This is my strong belief. Yes, there are those who say that men and women are the foundation, but I want to say to you that men and men and women and women also have a beautiful, loving relationship and that there are many examples that we can give and many community members. I mean, you go out on to the street, you look at the variety of people on the street. All loving relationships are beautiful, I would suggest to you. We can only achieve further understanding and further love by respecting each other and respecting the rights of people. That's a picture, a holistic, global picture, that we can show to the world. We don't want any gaps. We don't want more suffering by communities. We don't want to see discrimination continued. We want to change that picture. We want to see a picture of positive growth, positive benefits, of good information, of supporting, loving relationships. It's a message of hope and a message of human rights that we send to everyone by doing this, by making those changes, building on our history of positive, progressive change.

This is a foundation and it's a question I throw to you, those of you who are opposed, to accept that responsibility and to look for equal treatment for all the citizens of this province, no matter who they are, whether they're gay or lesbian. They have basic rights and responsibilities and obligations and it's up to us to help them achieve a loving, stable relationship.

I see, it being 6 of the clock, I'm out of time. There are other comments I would wish to make, but I would suggest we adjourn debate for the day.

The Speaker: When this bill is next called before the House, the honourable member for York East has up to six minutes and 37 seconds to continue his speech.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for the week of June 6.

On Monday, June 6, we will continue second reading consideration of Bill 167, the Equality Rights Amendment Act.

On Tuesday, June 7, we will consider an opposition day motion standing in the name of Mr Harris.

On Wednesday, June 8, we will continue second reading consideration of Bill 167, the Equality Rights Amendment Act.

On the morning of Thursday, June 9, during private members' public business, we will consider ballot item number 61, a resolution standing in the name of Mrs Carter, and ballot item number 62, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Beer. On Thursday afternoon, we will continue second reading debate on Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agricultural Industry.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.

The House adjourned at 1803.

2 juin 1994