Journal des débats 1994-juin-06 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Yesterday more than a thousand motorcycle riders protested outside this Legislature against Bill 164 and its nefarious impact on insurance coverage for motorcycle fans. Although NDP members are trying to blame the insurance industry for its withdrawal of services, it's clear that industry costs rose dramatically under the government's new insurance law. No wonder, then, that most companies have simply withdrawn from the motorcycle market.

On behalf of my party, I recently wrote to the Ontario Insurance Commission about this issue. On May 19 I received an encouraging reply from the commissioner, Mr Blair Tully. He says that his agency is actively working to persuade more insurers to provide motorcycle coverage. He adds, "Our efforts are showing some success and we expect some expansion in the market."

I call on the government to recognize the disastrous impact of Bill 164 on motorcycle insurance and to work with the Ontario Insurance Commission for a speedy solution to this difficult but important problem.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): On this the 50th anniversary of the D-Day invasion, I would like to acknowledge the crucial sacrifices which were made in the fight for our freedom.

Yesterday I had the honour of joining with members of the Perth-upon-Tay Branch 244 of the Royal Canadian Legion in a service dedicated to the brave Canadian soldiers who fought and fell during the D-Day invasion. Legions from across Lanark congregated in Stewart Park in the county town of Perth to participate in the drumhead memorial service.

Special appreciation should be extended to Eric Devlin and all the organizers of this service for orchestrating a commemorative event that will stand out in the minds of all who attended for many years to come.

One aspect of the service that stands out in my mind is the great number of young people who participated in this ceremony. It is comforting to know that after 50 years young Canadians still relate directly to the tremendous sacrifices that were made by previous generations to secure democracy and the way of life we now enjoy.

Indeed, all Canadians, young and old, should take time to recognize that on this day 50 years ago brave Canadian soldiers, as stated in the Smiths Falls Record News, "gave their tomorrow so that we could have our today."

PORTUGAL NATIONAL DAY

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): This Friday is Portugal Day. June 10th marks the Portuguese National Day as well as Portugal's greatest national poet, Luís de Camões.

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the political, social, cultural and economic contribution that the Portuguese community continues to make to Canadian society.

This government recently granted $1 million to reconstruct the First Portuguese Canadian Cultural and Community Centre. This community building is the centre for important social, cultural and recreational activities. We are proud that we've been able to pursue our job creation program Jobs Ontario in a way that enhances our social infrastructure.

For the past year and a half I've had the pleasure of working with the Portuguese university students, helping them to organize the Federation of Portuguese Canadian Student Associations. Several students are here today, and I would like to recognize them by name: Tony Dias of the University of Toronto, Ricardo Nero of York University and Christine Ferreira of the University of Toronto.

Their enthusiasm, commitment and energy are a model for all of us. Their efforts are bringing their cultural capital back into the community at large.

Securing funds for the First Portuguese Canadian Cultural and Community Centre and forming the Federation of Portuguese Canadian Student Associations helps to preserve Canadian Portuguese culture for generations to come.

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I was pleased to read this weekend that serial killer trading cards will no longer be available for sale. The California company which produces these cards has discontinued their production. According to the publisher of the company, the market is saturated and people aren't buying serial killer trading cards.

I am encouraged that the public has rejected these cards as worthwhile items to own. However, I am concerned that the only reason serial killer cards will not be available is because there currently is no market for them. I'm disappointed that the government has not acted to ensure that these cards will not be available for sale in the future.

Why? Because the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has failed to restrict the sale of these cards. Last July I introduced a private member's bill to ban the sale of serial killer cards to children. I did so because I was concerned about the message they sent to our children: that serial killers are worthy of hero status.

I believe it is important that we teach our children that violence is not acceptable and not worthy of glorification. Unfortunately, this Legislature has missed an opportunity to make this very important point. Instead we have let the marketplace dictate our values. This time we were lucky; next time, because there is no legislation to protect our children, we may not be.

1340

AFRICAN EPISCOPAL METHODIST CHURCH

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On June 12 the African Episcopal Methodist Church in the township of Oro-Medonte will echo with the sound of voices raised in prayer and song.

This tiny, one-room church, located at the corner of the Third Line of Oro and County Road 11, was built in 1847 by black Americans who settled in the Oro area to escape the shackles of slavery during the US Civil War. It's all that remains of one of the earliest all-black refugee settlements in Ontario.

Between 1830 and 1850 about 24 black families fled from slavery in the United States. Census records indicate a black population of 97 in 1831 and that number grew to 101 by 1860, a year before the start of the Civil War. Sadly, none of the descendants of the original black settlers now live in the area.

Henry Neufeld of the Oro-Medonte township history committee is representative of many people who deserve our thanks for keeping the memory of these early settlers alive. The simple, one-room church is a monument to those early settlers, black and white, who lived in peace and harmony during a most important period in the development of Ontario.

The special service is scheduled to get under way at 2:30 on June 12 and the event is expected to attract prominent members of the Toronto black community as well as some descendants of the original settlers. Come and raise your voice in song and prayer to commemorate one of the earliest all-black refugee settlements in Ontario.

Mr Speaker, I had the opportunity to play baseball with one of the black members of that family.

INNOVATIVE MANAGEMENT AWARD

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I am pleased to take this opportunity today to inform the members of the Legislature and of the public that the registration division of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has received the 1994 gold award for innovative management from the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, or IPAC.

The IPAC awards program, which is sponsored by Coopers and Lybrand Canada, received entries from 113 contestants. This prestigious national award has been presented to the division for its management of the northern relocation project. Innovative management has resulted in structural delayering and the effective implementation of new technology.

Furthermore, the division has been successful in offering some new positions to people in the employment equity target groups, one of the main reasons why it won the award: aboriginals, people with disabilities, sole-support parents, persons who are blind or deaf, visible minorities and francophones.

Staff now have a more meaningful assignment in a workplace that reflects a true learning environment. They advance through a system of generic positions with duties that change every six months on a rotating basis.

As a northern member of this House, I would like to congratulate the staff of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations who continue to demonstrate that their ministry is a leading innovator in management techniques.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, as you know, there's a revolution taking place inside Team Harris and the infighting has claimed its first casualty. Much to the dismay of the member for Parry Sound and others, the Tories' chief fund-raiser, Stewart Eagles, resigned in protest at the heavy-handed, dictatorial control exercised by Mike Harris.

Mike Harris's handpicked bagman has found it necessary to quit just months before a possible election. Why would he do this when things are supposedly going so well in the Progressive Conservative Party? Could it be that he's a man of integrity who cannot endorse a platform that simply doesn't add up and can't be implemented? Could it be that like Bill Davis, Andy Brandt, Larry Grossman and others, Mr Eagles wanted to disassociate himself from Mr Harris's right-wing policies? Or could it be that the newspapers are correct, that the $600,000 American Revolution was the straw that broke the camel's back?

You will remember, Mr Speaker, that the planning of this revolution was so secret that no one in the Conservative caucus knew. In fact, only a couple of Tories and one Republican were aware of it. How could one blame the chief fund-raiser for being upset with the way things have been handled?

Now that the Conservative Party infighting has claimed its first casualty, there's no wonder why they have stopped calling themselves Team Harris. Clearly, to me, the Eagle has definitely landed.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Fifty years ago today, thousands of Allied servicemen began the assault on the beaches of Normandy that would liberate France from Nazi oppression. This landing was critical to ending the Second World War.

We look back with mixed feelings of pride and sorrow at the achievement of D-Day. Canada played a critical role in the landing, but the cost in human lives was high. I feel a particular bond to those who served in Normandy, because my husband, Ken, was one of them.

Mothers, wives, children and girlfriends also suffered tremendous loss so that the world could be free again. My father, a member of the Royal Navy, never returned from the war. In 1989 I revisited his gravesite with my three brothers and was profoundly moved by reading the ages of the young men who were buried alongside my father. Most of them were 18 to 22, almost children themselves.

Yesterday I was proud to parade side by side with the veterans of Branch 82 of the Royal Canadian Legion, Port Credit, and members of Unit 262 of the Army, Navy and Air Force in Lakeview. It was a fine tribute to all veterans.

My prayer today is that all Canadians will remember the great sacrifice of these brave people by working to keep this wonderful country, Canada, undivided and free. We owe it to those who gave their lives for us. We are the children of their sacrifice. They have given us the legacy of freedom and democracy.

LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): The Law Enforcement Torch Run is an international event held to benefit the Special Olympics. The torch run has become the largest grass-roots fund-raising event for the Special Olympics, involving over 75,000 law enforcement personnel worldwide.

The 1994 Law Enforcement Torch Run continued to carry the torch, which represents the flame of hope and the values of the Special Olympics: skill, sharing, courage and joy.

From May 21 to June 5, at the direction of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the eighth annual torch run saw law enforcement runners take up the torch as part of a cross-province relay which began in every corner of Ontario and continued through each day until its conclusion in Barrie. Over 8,000 kilometres were covered by 7,000 law enforcement personnel.

Personnel from your local law enforcement agency will be collecting donations on behalf of the Ontario Special Olympics. They are hoping to build on their 1993 total of $750,000. All donations go to the Ontario Special Olympics for the expansion of its programs throughout the province.

I'd like to take a second to mention Senior Special Constable Gerry Dowd, who's stationed here at the precinct, for his diligence and commitment to the kids and the adults who will benefit from this fund-raising effort.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): May I ask for unanimous consent to speak to D-Day?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

1350

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY / ANNIVERSAIRE DU DÉBARQUEMENT

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Today we recognize the 50th anniversary of D-Day. June 6, 1944, was possibly the most momentous 24 hours of the 20th century: 24 hours in which the tide of war would be fought on the bloodstained beaches of Normandy.

The sheer scale of D-Day was beyond belief. Ten thousand aircraft took part, every one of them painted with stripes the night before for recognition. The planes, towing gliders and carrying paratroops, formed a nose-to-tail stream more than 100 miles long that morning.

Seven thousand vessels, from tiny midget submarines to the mightiest of battleships, were to head for five tiny beaches. So crowded were the ports in the south of England that many of these ships were forced to set sail from as far afield as Scotland.

One hundred and fifty thousand soldiers, including 15,000 Canadians, set foot on French soil that day: 10,000 of them were killed, including 374 Canadians, others were missing and countless others were wounded.

On D-Day, for the first time in the war, all three elements of Canada's armed forces fought together. Of the 15,000 Canadian soldiers who stormed Juno Beach, one third were ferried into battle in Royal Canadian landing craft, while RCAF bombers and fighters flew overhead. Canada's conquest of the Schelt estuary liberated the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam and paved the way for the final Allied assault on Germany. It also cost Canada almost 13,000 soldiers dead.

D-Day has been called the longest day in history, and it's gained, rightfully, a place in history. On that longest day, some landings went well and some went dreadfully bad.

As I said before, 10,000 soldiers lost their lives, but the beachheads were made -- and held. Five beaches, five code names, Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword, and the men who crossed those strips of shell-torn sand can never forget what they meant.

On the day following the invasion, the president of Oxford University, Sir Henry Tizzard, remarked:

"I feel rather like a patient coming round after a severe but successful operation. Deep down there is a feeling that all is well and that a great oppression has been lifted, but other feelings I have are not so pleasant."

Sir Henry was right in his assumptions. On June 15, just nine days after the invasion, a steady procession of V-1s, named by the British cabinet as flying bombs, came down on London and other parts of southern England at the rate of 100 a day. Before the launch sites at Pas de Calais were overrun by Allied soldiers on August 25 in their advance from the D-Day landings, some 7,825 V-1s and V-2s rained down on London and the south of England, killing 8,199 citizens; 22,000 more were badly injured and nearly 30,000 homes were destroyed in this last desperate attack upon English soil.

Across the channel, there are 13,000 graves of Canadian soldiers, and today we are paying sober tribute to their valour and to their sacrifice.

Over the years, we have all reassessed what happened and asked again, what was the result? On June 6, 1944, of course the simple, single limitation for invasion was to assist in the defeat of Hitler's Germany. There was no other agenda, no subtext, nothing hidden. It was perceived as a battle for democracy.

All survivors of the period, when pushed to remember, reflect on the closeness of comradeship, the absence of class conflict and the hope that a better future would be constructed from wartime cooperation.

Today, there is an inevitable national sadness when we remember D-Day. For me, the term for today of "celebration" seems somewhat out of place. Since that day in 1944, we have all come to understand that times such as this should not be seen as any celebration but a time to reflect upon the peace we all share in, brought about by the sacrifice of others.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): We commemorate today a vast military undertaking, Operation Overlord, otherwise known as D-Day, that began 50 years ago in the wee hours of the morning.

The object of this operation was the liberation of Europe from Hitler's Third Reich. In commemorating D-Day, we should remember the participation of Canadian troops in the war effort on many fronts. Canadian forces were involved in many battles, including the Normandy campaign, but what sets D-Day apart from the others is the sheer magnitude of the operation: the hundreds of thousands of troops, the mind-boggling logistics required to organize and wage such a crucial campaign. Let us not forget the cooperation required between Allied nations to carry out this monumental task. Collaboration was essential; it set the stage for a military effort that would slowly but surely lead to the triumph of the Allies. This triumph, as we know, exacted a terrible price.

Descriptions of the Battle of Normandy explain how painstakingly every inch of French territory was won, through fierce fighting and battles in the streets, and also through the bombing of French villages and the countryside. All of this was in the objective of gaining ground, ferreting out the enemy, establishing firmly the Allies' position on French soil.

In the original plan, the city of Caen was to be taken on D-Day itself, but stiff German resistance held off Canadian and British forces for a good month. This illustrates just how tough the Normandy campaign was and how tenacious, how courageous our soldiers were. They did not flinch before their task. We know today how difficult, how merciless that task was. We also know that some veterans still cannot evoke memories of the war without tears; how painful it is to remember friends and family fallen on the battlefields, to recall the horrors of war.

Accounts of the Battle of Normandy render so vividly the difficulties of the campaign. Even before the fighting started, soldiers en route to the coast were already sick, seasick. Then they had to wade out onto the beach, face enemy fire, witness the death and injury of colleagues, while also remembering their instructions. To make things worse, not all the soldiers landed where they expected to and thus had to improvise somewhat in order to accomplish their mission. One officer on a beach told his men, "Two kinds of people are staying on this beach: the dead and those who are going to die." The average lifespan in battle of a platoon commander was a matter of weeks.

By August 25, 1944, the Allies had liberated Paris. The Normandy campaign was over, but the war continued. In early 1945, Canadian troops participated in the Battle of the Rhineland. This gruelling effort lasted from February 8 to March 10 and cost the Canadian army 11,336 fatal casualties. About 237,000 Canadians, men and women, served in northwestern Europe.

In his book called Battle Diary, Charles Cromwell Martin, company sergeant-major, Able Company, from the Queen's Own Rifles Regiment, recounts the mission to take the city of Mooshof, where many officers and soldiers were killed in this particular exercise. To underscore the horror of it all, Mr Martin writes in his book, "This was just about the most frightening action of all -- knives flashing in the glow of flares, hand-to-hand fighting as artillery bursts lit up the sky, death everywhere."

This, in essence, was the experience of war for most Canadians on the front, a hands-on experience in the worst sense of the term; a horrifying, hellish, desperate task that defies our imagination. Yet our soldiers persisted. They went on in the midst of frightening chaos, deafening noise, personal agony and great fear.

1400

They accomplished their mission because they believed in their cause. Upon them, upon the Allied forces, rested the future of free and democratic societies. These soldiers did not need to be convinced of the righteousness of that cause. Tyranny, then and today, has no place in any society which values human dignity, liberty, freedom of expression and the principles of democracy.

To return to events earlier in the war, I would like to remind the House that Canadian troops were already fighting in Italy in 1943. They participated in the battle of Ortona, Casa Berardi, to name a few. Over 92,000 Canadians, soldiers of all ranks, served in Italy, and nearly 6,000 lost their lives. Many of these soldiers were redeployed in northwestern Europe in early 1945.

We're also familiar with the tragic outcome of the Dieppe raid earlier still, in August 1942: 4,963 Canadians took part in this raid; 907 died and 1,946 were taken prisoner.

There were countless other battles, as Canadians were involved in the war on so many fronts. These are some of the regiments that joined the war effort: the Queen's Own Rifles, the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, le Régiment de la Chaudière, the Canadian Black Watch, the Governor General's Foot Guards, les Fusiliers Mont-Royal, the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders, the Highland Light Infantry, the Royal Regina Rifle Regiment, and my own regiment, le Royal 22^e Regiment.

I know that I've left out regiments and so many individuals. I wish I could stand here and recite, one by one, the names of the courageous men and women who took such enormous risks and made such great sacrifices in order that they and we remain free from oppression.

May I remind you of the women who served as nurses. Hundreds of nurses participated in the Normandy campaign with the Canadian army. Jean Bruce, author of Back the Attack, wrote that at war's end, "Canada's 4,480 nursing sisters had cared for more than 60,000 wounded Canadians, numerous Allied servicemen and many enemy casualties."

There were the Royal Canadian Engineers, who had the most unpleasant task of mine clearing: searching for and defusing mines.

Countless untold stories, unsung heroes: I know I have left out many whose contribution is equally deserving of recognition.

Tant d'individus se sont distingués pendant la guerre, et bien souvent malgré eux. Personne ne cherchait à jouer le héros. Il y avait déjà suffisamment à faire.

Permettez-moi de vous citer encore un exemple. Le 1^er août 1944, le major Jacques Dextraze dirigeait sa compagnie dans la ville de St-Martin-de-Fontenay. Objectif : saisir une église. Sous le feu continuel de l'ennemi et devant l'hésitation de ses propres soldats, le major traversa tranquillement la rue et se plaça près du mur dans la cour de l'église, s'exposant complètement au feu de l'ennemi. Suivant son exemple, ses troupes le suivirent et réussirent leur mission.

It is interesting to note that a good half of the members of this House were not even born in 1945. To any Canadians who have learned about the Second World War through history books, the war is a more or less distant event, but to the many veterans in attendance today and all over Canada, the war is a part of their lives. They live with the memories, the smells and the emotions of the war in a way we can only imagine.

Veterans embody the notions of duty and responsibility in a manner that is not often seen today. They represent a time when certain values had a strong meaning and could incite a young man or woman to volunteer for the cause, for the common good. They were prepared to give their lives, and so many did, so that others might live free from oppression. This, to me, is perhaps the ultimate act of generosity, of selflessness.

I ask all Ontarians today, all Canadians, to remember this sacrifice. Remember the inhumanity of the conflict, remember the courage of soldiers and civilians, thousands of small lights in the darkness of the war. Remember those lights and hold them in your hearts.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): On behalf of our leader, Mr Harris, and our whole PC caucus, I'd first of all like to thank Mr Gordon Mills, the member for Durham East, and M. Gilles Morin, the member for Carleton East, for the way in which all caucuses have worked together to help remember D-Day. It does show how we can drop party lines and do the right thing.

There is no glory in war. To the contrary, the pain and suffering on both sides in the Second World War was horrendous. Could Hitler be allowed to dominate Europe, to threaten and destroy freedom, to bomb, burn and bury civilization? Canadians had no choice but to react with conviction to do what was right, to react with courage to fight against greater odds. All of Canada became committed to the war totally. Principles were important at that time, and nothing could have been more urgent.

The preparations were immense. Hitler already had a head start. From 1933, he had been chancellor and dictator of Germany, building his massive war machine for his thousand-year Reich. Finally, on September 10, 1939, Canada declared war on Germany. We had to begin almost from scratch, recruiting men and women, building armaments, the guns and rifles and planes and vessels, putting together all the materials and the training and the planning and the building.

Every family was touched. My father was a padre at home for the Brockville Rifles. My eldest brother was in training with the Brockville Officers Training Centre. The pain of separation was very real to just about every household: saying goodbye to father and brothers and sisters, the farewell kiss of sweethearts followed by years away from home, and then the many who would never return.

Today we remember one of the most significant days in the Second World War, when the combined Allied forces established a beachhead on the shores of France. Today we remember the gallant and the brave, the naval forces carrying soldiers into battle, the air support and the paratroopers, support of all kinds, and especially those valiant front-line forces. The only way they could ever come home now was to go forward into battle, take their chance, clear a way, and then, God willing, succeed. Today we remember the Canadians who made it happen on June 6, 1944.

The communiqué of the day read, "General Eisenhower announces that British, Canadian and American troops have effected a landing on the coast of France."

In the air, 48 RCAF squadrons took part. Every province was represented on the land, in the air and afloat. Juno Beach, Caen and Normandy will be etched in the memory of Canadians for ever.

1410

Over 1,086,000 Canadian men and women served in Canada's army, navy and air force in World War II. Over 42,000 Canadians lost their lives fighting for freedom. Over 55,000 Canadians were wounded.

But the beachhead was necessary. Operation Overlord was essential to gain a foothold in Europe. All this would lead to the victory of Europe on May 8, 1945, and the surrender of Germany.

Today we pay tribute to the courage and sacrifice of men and women who valiantly defended our freedoms. Today we think back on the efforts by those on the home front, the men and the women and the children who all pitched in to support our servicemen and women overseas.

Canada remembers.

Canada remembers our veterans who came home with memories of things we would never imagine, of physical and psychological hurts that would never disappear.

Canada remembers our armed forces of today and the continuing support that we as Canadians give for international peacekeeping efforts.

Canada remembers our wartime friends and the special relationships with the British and Americans, Dutch, French, Belgians, Polish, Norwegians and others.

Canada remembers our own local legions that support our veterans, who back up each other and help keep the memory alive.

Canada does remember. We must never forget the sacrifice that has been made for us today. Thank you, veterans, here in the Legislature and wherever you are, for your sacrifice. We will not forget.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LONG-TERM CARE / SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Today I will be introducing long-term care community services legislation. The Long-Term Care Act delivers on our government's commitment to improve and expand long-term care and support services. This legislation enables us to create a coordinated and integrated system from the current patchwork of community services spread unevenly across the province.

The new long-term care system will put the needs and preferences of consumers and their families first. The legislation supports our government's central goal: helping seniors and the physically disabled live in the familiar comfort of their homes and other community settings. These changes put the proper emphasis on rehabilitation, disease prevention and health promotion. They will create a consumer-friendly system that reduces our dependence on institutional care.

For more than 10 years governments have talked about changing the long-term care system. This government has acted. We are getting on with the job of meeting the needs of Ontarians who want care in their homes and in their communities. In 1991-92 we spent $706 million in community-based long-term care services. When reform is fully implemented during 1996-97 we will spend more than $1 billion.

Health care is vital to the high quality of life we have in this province. We are committed to protecting our health care system, and as part of this we have made community-based health care a priority. In long-term care we have shown this time and time again. For example, we've expanded services such as the integrated homemaker program, quick-response teams and palliative care.

It is particularly fitting to be making this announcement during Seniors' Month. So much of what we are doing in long-term care will improve the quality of life of our seniors as well as people with disabilities.

The legislation sets out the mandate of multiservice agencies. Multiservice agencies will be the cornerstone of the new system in each community. The agencies will simplify and coordinate access to long-term care services. The legislation creates the framework that will enable communities to integrate health and social in-home and community services. It enables us to build on the strengths of Ontario's voluntary services.

Services such as nursing, personal care, homemaking and home support will be integrated and offered under uniform eligibility and service rules. They will be flexible and provided in a way that is responsive to the individual needs and preferences of consumers to enable them to remain in their homes and communities.

No longer will consumers have to make several calls to several different programs before getting appropriate service. They will be able to make one call to their local multiservice agency, or MSA, for professional health services or for help with personal care, housekeeping, meal services or respite for family care givers.

MSAs mean easier access for consumers, integration of case management and service delivery, increased non-profit provision of services and more consumer control. They will be sensitive to the needs of ethnocultural communities.

Je m'engage à ce que les organisations de services polyvalents situées dans les régions désignées en vertu de la Loi sur les services en français offrent des services dans cette langue, et je ferai en sorte que les organisations de services polyvalents concernées soient désignées en vertu de cette Loi.

Local communities are actively involved in developing MSAs. The job of planning MSAs was given to district health councils. This legislation confirms the role of DHCs in planning for health services in general.

Under the Long-Term Care Act, consumers will receive new safeguards. The act establishes a bill of rights and an appeals process for consumers receiving services under the new legislation. The rights will be comparable to those available to residents in long-term care facilities. In the current system, there are no consistent guidelines or rules that tell consumers of community-based services what they can expect from service providers, nor do service providers have consistent rules on how they are expected to treat consumers.

This legislation, together with the expansion, improvement and integration of community-based services, is fundamental to effective and efficient long-term care. We can change and are changing our overreliance on institutional care. Together with our partners, we are building a long-term care system to serve us for decades to come.

In the gallery today are representatives of groups that have worked for a long time to see this day come. I thank them for their efforts and for their support. We are well on the way to realizing their vision.

I know I can count on the support of honourable members for this important legislation.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): As you know, governments for a period of several years have been turning their minds to reform of the long-term care system in Ontario and have been looking for an improvement to a system to ensure that there will be guaranteed access to appropriate services, that those services will be provided equitably and that those services will be provided with a high quality. We had anticipated that this piece of legislation would be before us some time ago. In fact, we had anticipated that this legislation would be in quite a different form than what the minister has announced in the House today and to the media.

Naturally, we won't be able to see that until the legislation is printed, but our understanding from the announcements that were made a year ago was that the second phase of legislation was expected to result "in the repeal of several existing statutes and regulations and in the creation of a new framework encompassing both facility- and community-based long-term care services." That quote came from the implementation framework which was issued last year at about this time.

1420

Since that statement was issued -- and why we had expected to see something a little different -- we've had Bill 101, which brought an equivalent approach to funding of long-term care facilities, the nursing homes and homes for the aged, and we have seen some problems with the implementation of that bill. The legislation was to ensure that accommodation, levels of health and personal care requirements, nursing requirements and quality of life were provided on an equitable basis through the province.

Clearly, one of the things that was not anticipated by the ministry in advance was the deep level of problem with respect to the carriage of mortgage financing in the nursing home sector. As a consequence, the ministry had to change that funding approach halfway through the year, having done so with a mechanism that was appropriate perhaps for nursing homes, although it went back to the old system, but clearly inappropriate for homes for the aged, which are now having an extraordinarily difficult time trying to deal with a funding mechanism that they had never been used to in the past and had no experience in. Those problems from that sector are still very much on the table.

The reason I refer to that is that when Bill 101 was put into place, the first phase of the long-term care reform, there had not been the pilots done, there had not been the testing done of the system that ought to have been put into place. I believe and I am deeply concerned that we are going to have the same problem as the multiservice agencies come on stream.

Throughout the development and implementation phases of the MSAs, we have seen guidelines and directives and information flows from the ministry which are confusing and conflicting, create different directions and provide different guidelines to people in various communities. There has been no test of the validity of the one model that the government is allowing, which may or may not be appropriate for every community. In fact, from what we're hearing, it may seem not to be appropriate for most communities.

Many communities are deeply concerned about this particular model. They are deeply concerned about the way the MSA may well cut into the volunteer agencies and the role of the voluntary individuals of the volunteer organizations who have provided about 30% of the operating funding of our home care agencies and community agencies and an enormous portion of direct service delivery to long-term care patients.

If one thinks of some of those organizations, one can understand the intense involvement of volunteers. I give you CNIB, VON, the Cancer Society, Alzheimer associations, the multiple sclerosis association, which are dealing with people who are in the very specific target group that the minister is dealing with. Those volunteer patient services, and indeed the volunteer fund-raising services, may well be lost to our system.

We are going to be pursuing this over the next period of time. I am concerned that the promise is far greater than the probability of success here, and I wish that the minister had, before undertaking a specific flow, undertaken some tests in that flow.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to spend a couple of minutes in responding to the Minister of Health's announcement or, in many ways, reannouncement concerning long-term care reform in this province.

It struck me, as the previous member from the Liberal Party was speaking, that that government, when in office, spent some three years trying to deal with the question of multiservice agencies, MSAs, and now in the fourth year of the NDP government we see the minister coming forward with some legislation that I've not had the opportunity to read because she's just tabling it, but I expect that it will not, in any significant way, make the tough decisions that have to be made out there if the province is truly to move towards an MSA model.

As I've travelled across the province since the first phase of long-term care was introduced several months ago in this Legislature, I have found that it's really a dog's breakfast out there with respect to many of the multiservice agencies. To date, between two governments, we have no multiservice agencies up and running. We have a great deal of confusion in the long-term care sector, particularly with respect to by whom and how the community-based services are going to be delivered in the future.

We have a great concern in my party about the future role of volunteers. I know that in the county of Simcoe, which I partly represent along with three other MPPs, it's been pointed out to us that it may be very difficult to attract volunteers who normally work for the Red Cross or VON etc, if they're to be attracted to this new bureaucracy called "the multiservice agency."

We have continued concerns with respect to the government wanting to drive the private sector out of the delivery of community-based services and home care services in this province. We believe the government, through its ideology, is really limiting consumer choice, and we ask the government, during the committee hearings that will proceed with this legislation, to review that question and to hear directly from consumers.

Again, we're very concerned that a new level of bureaucracy is being created, given that the government has not really taken the tough decisions to enable MSAs to come in. If there are going to be savings in the system to fund these MSAs, then something's going to have to give at the community level, and the government has not identified that.

There's only one thing we know for sure: The last two governments have closed 6,000 hospital beds, all in the name of moving towards community-based services, and we've not seen a significant increase in those services in our communities. So we'll be continuing to pressure the government to put its money where its mouth is. The Common Sense Revolution seals the health care envelope and says, "Any money saved on the institutional side will go into the community-based side." That's our commitment. It's our commitment to the consumers and patients in this province.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): As the seniors' advocate for the PC party, I wish to comment as well. I know the minister has not mentioned in her statement today that on Friday she, or her staff, met with all the district health councils and she shared some of today's announcement with them, but there's some of today's information she didn't share with them.

I have been able to determine that when she wrote her letter on May 17 about transitional strategies to change the direction that multiservice agencies are going, there were at least six communities under active consideration to bring in quick MSAs by the end of the year.

Minister, I can only say to you that we want you to proceed expeditiously with this program, but by the same token be very careful. Sudbury, which I understand is on the list, may be able to reach consensus very quickly. But we understand that your ministry's seriously looking at an application from Georgetown and Halton region. There are five separate communities in Halton region, and by you giving seed money to Georgetown to be up and running early, you're defining the balance of the service delivery model in Halton region for the future. So I ask you to be careful as you proceed with that.

I notice concerns being raised about the volunteer sector. Today people are volunteering for Meals on Wheels and the Red Cross but tomorrow under the MSAs some have said, "Well, we'll be volunteering for Bob Rae, and we're not terribly wild about that."

I would hope that during the public hearings this summer, the minister will examine the statistics in Quebec, where there was a dropoff in volunteers in the geriatric care area, and then what we can do to come up with strategies to mitigate that loss of a very valuable resource base in this province.

Finally, Minister, in your comments this morning you said that you're making tough choices to bring this in, but frankly, if you're not going to inject substantive new dollars into the program, the tough decisions are to take other seniors' programs and put it into long-term care, and we don't think that's the sole way to go.

1430

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question today is for the Minister of Community and Social Services, and it concerns the sexual abuse and the sexual exploitation of children.

Minister, I think all of us who have been watching the story unfold in the so-called child pornography case in London are, to put it bluntly, just horrified by yet another example of how this awful cancer seems to have taken root in altogether too much of this society.

Minister, since you have the lead responsibility for the safety and protection of children in the governmental apparatus of Ontario, I'd like to ask you today what actions you have taken, as the minister who is primarily responsible for children in this province, to assist in the protection of those victims, those children, in this latest incident in London and area.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I think the member opposite would appreciate that my response will not be to the specific incident. I think he will also appreciate, having been in government, that there are a number of ministries that have responsibilities in the children's area, but of course I acknowledge that our ministry is one of those that have important responsibilities.

In terms of the specific issues of enforcement of proceedings, enforcement around law and order, obviously I think the member would acknowledge that it is both within the Solicitor General's office and the Attorney General's office that the primary responsibility rests. But I can tell the member that certainly we have undertaken and are continuing to work on a number of initiatives within the Ministry of Community and Social Services which deal with providing stronger support to children's aid societies in the area of prevention, in terms of training of staff -- there were some funds that we allocated just recently through children's aid societies specifically for those initiatives -- as well as looking at what happens with respect to people charged under the Young Offenders Act and what kinds of alternatives to custody measures can be undertaken. There again, there are some initiatives that are under way now.

Mr Conway: I appreciate all of that, as I'm sure all members do, but as we look at the most recent incident in London, we're now told by police officers and others that it's not just London in this particular case. There are scores of victims, young people between the ages of five and 15 or 17, I believe it is. The investigation in the London case sweeps from Barrie through London all the way into Windsor, in large centres and in small villages.

This is sick and this is serious, and it's not just southwestern Ontario. In my part of eastern Ontario, we've had horrific examples of much of the same kinds of things in Kingston, in Prescott, in Smiths Falls, in Alfred. The list just goes on and on.

It seems to me that the members of the Legislature and the province beyond sense a real urgency, Minister, in this situation, because the police reports and the reports of other care givers detail an alarming pattern. I won't recite today the latest from police authorities in the London area, but it is absolutely awful.

Minister, can you detail in a more specific way what actions you have taken, along with your colleagues the minister of justice, the Minister of Correctional Services and the Minister of Education and Training? What initiatives have you taken, for example, to meet with children's aid societies and other child protection services, not just in London but in the case of Operation Jericho, out in eastern Ontario, to give some very clear and urgent direction on behalf of your government that more must be done to root out this awful cancer that is afflicting and injuring so many defenceless young people all across Ontario?

Hon Mr Silipo: I think we all would agree that this is an issue of great sensitivity and an issue of great importance whenever there is this kind of threat to the basic safety of young people. I know that in terms of the local issues in London, the London children's aid society is doing all it can to bring together the various parties in the community -- the police, the crown and Family Court clinic -- to deal with the specifics of the situation.

I can tell the member that we have also been working to develop a better child abuse screening mechanism. We have put together and just recently issued a draft document to societies. This is something that would replace the present system and do a much more effective job to screen prospective employees who want to work with children in a variety of children's agencies.

This is just but another one of the steps we need to take. We need to continue to work with all the other ministries and with our agencies locally to ensure that greater attention is placed on all these issues, all of which I think together can enhance both the safety and the care we provide for young people, because the two issues are also very much connected.

Mr Conway: Minister, again, you are the lead minister. You are the lead advocate for children in this government, though others share in the responsibility. But you're the spokesman, you're the defender, you're the advocate for all these kids, kids who by the score in London and in Prescott and in Kingston and in too many other places are being victimized in ways that I think all of us find disgusting.

What I need to know from you today is, with what urgency are you proceeding? What specific action plan have you developed, for example, in response to the London situation? Can you tell the House today, on behalf of your colleagues the Solicitor General, the minister of justice, the Minister of Education and Training and the Minister of Health perhaps, what specific additional measures you as the lead minister and as the advocate for these kids are taking, particularly in the London case, to ensure that every and any assistance that might be provided to police authorities, to child protection agencies in that particular case, is in fact going to be offered and offered in a very quick and timely fashion?

Hon Mr Silipo: I know that the member for understandable reasons continues to come back to the specific situation in London. I believe that last week my colleague the Solicitor General indicated very clearly what the government was doing through his ministry to cooperate with the local police and to deal with the issues in that way.

While we in the Ministry of Community and Social Services have very clear responsibilities in this area, we are not the only ministry that is dealing with this issue.

I can say to the member that we will continue to do our part, in working with our local agencies, in this case particularly the children's aid society, and in other parts throughout the province, and work with our sister ministries to ensure that these issues are brought together in a much more coherent way.

I think we can learn very much, unfortunately, from the instances that are going on to help all of us improve our efforts, both at the provincial level and locally, but it is not the kind of thing to which there are easy and quick solutions.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health and it relates clearly to the long-term care legislation she has introduced and announced today.

One of our major concerns is that the Minister of Health is building expectations for a system that cannot and in fact will not be put into place. Every financial prediction that's been made so far with respect to long-term care has proven to be inaccurate, from resident copayment income that was expected to come in, to service costs of services to be provided to long-term care recipients.

I'm asking the minister if she will answer how she can promise the range of services that she has promised when in fact she doesn't know how many MSAs there will be, how many multiservice agencies will exist, what the basket of services is that each will provide and what the community-needs analyses are showing; how she can presume to promise that the new system will replace hourly and visit maximums with a dollar-maximum system when the impact of that has not been analysed yet; and how she can justify all and any of these promises when the basic analysis of service planning and financial management will not be available until April 1995.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): To be charged with having raised expectations on this issue by a member of a government that was in power for five years and raised expectations in every one of those years without delivering on a single aspect of the reform is a little hard to take.

Let me assure the honourable member that in fact long-term care doesn't begin with this legislation nor end with it. Long-term care implementation began two years ago when we announced our directions and began to put in place the implementation.

Let me remind her of the figures: community-based care expenditures in 1990-91, $557 million; in 1991-92, $706 million; in 1993-94, $887 million -- a 60% increase in community-based spending. My generous colleague the Minister of Finance is as committed to this as I am.

The communities that are currently receiving fragmented and uncoordinated services from a variety of agencies are having almost 30% to 40% of their expenditures on administration. As we streamline and integrate the system, we will be able to deliver, just as we have in the past.

1440

Mrs Sullivan: I'll tell you, that delivery has not been very sharp. I have documentation that tells us when in fact this entire program is going to be costed, and those answers are not going to be available for another year. We have promises and we don't know how they're going to be paid for.

In another vein, with respect to the financial side of long-term care reform, I want to go back to the minister with one of the issues I raised in the response to her statement, and that is with respect to the 30% of operating income, and also capital, donations which are made to community agencies across Ontario through volunteer donations and voluntary activity; also the value of patient services that are provided by volunteers to organizations such as the CNIB, VON, St Elizabeth, multiple sclerosis and so on.

As we know, a great deal of the patient service work is now provided by volunteers, whether it's friendly visiting, whether it's assisting with seniors' centres, whether it's providing security checks, whether it's driving residents or patients to health care services. While those services are provided happily by loyal volunteers, there's no confidence that those services will be provided to a bureaucratic structure as envisaged through an MSA. In other jurisdictions, there has been a clear falloff in that kind of volunteer activity.

I would like to know from the minister what analysis she's done in the loss of value of those volunteer services, first of all in donations, and secondly in the additional costs which will be have to be introduced into the system for patient services which are now provided by volunteers.

Hon Mrs Grier: In her response to my statement, the member said that we should be doing pilot projects, not moving to the implementation of MSAs. Now she says we should wait on increased funding until we have some report on total needs. That's exactly the kind of halting, slow implementation the people of this province rejected in 1990 when they put this government in place to begin to act on some of the commitments and some of the promises.

The member speaks about volunteer agencies. Let me assure her I come from the volunteer sector, for a very long time. I know, in my community, what the volunteer agencies do and I know how much volunteer agencies are looking forward to having some strong support, some way of having volunteer coordination and integration supported by volunteer liaison people at agencies.

She talks about bureaucratic structures. I don't quite understand why she thinks that a volunteer-led, community-based volunteer board with consumers and community representatives is going to be bureaucratic whereas the existing volunteer agencies are not. They're one and the same thing. It's just a response to the community's demand for a more efficient, effective and integrated delivery of service.

Your government wanted bureaucratic service coordinating agencies. Consumers told us they wanted to build on the voluntary sector, and that's what our reform is all about.

Mrs Sullivan: My last supplementary reflects some of the concerns of the people who work in the long-term care sector. The minister indicated today at the news conference that some 5,000 jobs would be shifted or lost under long-term care. Once again there's been no estimate or analysis of the work that will be changed or, in patient choice, by example, how to receive attendant care or how direct funding projects could be involved and still be involved.

There is no long-term labour strategy associated with long-term care reform, and no long-term process to establish that labour strategy. No one knows, because the minister hasn't defined it, where training is going to be put into place and what new skills are going to be developed.

If the minister follows the old example of the Hospital Training Adjustment Panel, and now the Health Sector Training and Adjustment Panel, what we will see is a résumé-writing procedure with no success in doing what it was intended to do, and that is to find real jobs for people.

I'm asking the minister how any workers in the long-term care field can have any confidence in these initiatives when they have no security in their future in the long-term care field and they know, because the minister has indicated, there is no long-term strategy with respect to labour adjustment in this field.

Hon Mrs Grier: I must confess to being disappointed that the member, on behalf of her party, does not take a more constructive approach to what is very important legislation, and legislation that has been promised for a very long time. There will be opportunities to debate the elements of it, but I would hope she would understand the value of this legislation.

When she says in her question that I said there would be 5,000 jobs lost, she's absolutely dead wrong. I said, as I have said before, that there would be 5,000 new jobs in long-term care as a result of our funding.

I welcome the member's conversion and interest in labour adjustment strategy. That certainly is an improvement. Let me assure her that it is our government that has asked district health councils to put in place human resource plans as they make the shift to long-term care through multiservice agencies, and that it is our government that has created the health services training and adjustment plan with $30 million worth of funding to support and assist workers whose jobs may change as a result of the increase in employment as a result of our long-term care strategy.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, third party.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health, and it concerns her long-term care agenda for this province. Despite warnings from the home health care industry, workers in the home care industry, agencies that broker home care services and patients who receive these services, you have persisted with your government's decision to limit the private sector to 10% of the publicly funded home care market. In announcing this decision last year, you conceded that you had not undertaken one single study to determine the socioeconomic or cost-benefit impact of your ideologically driven agenda.

In your news conference this morning, though, Minister, you mentioned that the 90%-10% public-private split had now become an 80%-20% split. Given that nowhere in your media release or your statement today do you formally announce this change in the private sector's involvement in the delivery of home care services, I have to ask you this question: What is the figure of the month, 10%, 20%, or have you finally decided that your ideologically driven agenda is wrong and dangerous and that you're going to allow the private sector to continue to deliver almost 50% of the home care services in this province?

Hon Mrs Grier: Our agenda responds to a very clear request during consultation on long-term care that it be provided by not-for-profit agencies, and also to the Canada Health Act, which does say that our health system is delivered by not-for-profit agencies.

But let me say to the honourable member that certainly our policy of 10% for purchase from for-profit agencies was one that caused a lot of concern in some areas of the province where services are already provided by agencies that have a much larger share of the market than in some other areas of the province.

As this whole process has been an iterative one where we have tried to respond to the concerns of the communities on whose behalf the planning has been done, in the legislation I will table today we will make a change: not that the 10% is not our desired goal, but what we are saying in the legislation is that there will be a 20% limit for each multiservice agency on the amount of services that it may purchase. Within that 20%, there may be nursing services, homemaking services, some of which may be provided by for-profit agencies, some by not-for-profit agencies.

Yes, that does represent a change from the policy position and it is in response to the request for some greater flexibility that we heard from some communities.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's very interesting. I take it, Minister, that your shift from 10% to 20% is an admission that your ideology was wrong from the first place; it was wrong last year when you reannounced the 10% decision and it's wrong today.

Consumers didn't ask for this during the public hearings that were held or during the public meetings that were held in the first phase of long-term care. I was at many of those meetings and I'll tell you that when you're at home waiting for home care services, you don't care if it's a private sector agency or a not-for-profit agency coming into your home.

You just want standards of care, you want to know what to expect, you want one-stop shopping so that it's easy to get those services, and you don't want the government putting thousands of people out of work in the private sector simply because it's hell-bent on providing services in the not-for-profit sector, which, by the way, Minister, you have no studies to show is any cheaper or better than the private sector agencies that are there now providing 50% of the care to the people of this province; you have no studies whatsoever.

1450

I want to ask you again, because I've asked you this before and I asked Ms Lankin this in the past, what do you have against the private sector? They get the same pay when they go into a home for a service as a not-for-profit agency --

The Speaker: Could the member complete his question, please.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- and in many parts of this province your admission today confirms the fact that government can't deliver all these services and that you need the private sector. So what is it you have against the private sector, Minister, because consumers didn't ask for this --

The Speaker: Would the member please complete his question.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- health care officials didn't ask for this. Why are you so wedded to your own --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: I think the honourable member opened his question by accusing me of having an ideology. Far be it for me to suggest that perhaps his ideology is even narrower than mine, as in my response to his first question, I was acknowledging the need for both kinds of services.

Let me be very clear to the member. Seniors across this province said that they want their health care dollars provided in terms of providing services, goods and wages that will provide service, not in going into profit for private entrepreneurs who are benefiting from the public dollars.

We have a health care system in this province --

Mr Jim Wilson: Government pays the same no matter who delivers the service.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Simcoe West, please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that is founded on the Canada Health Act and the delivery of not-for-profit health care. Is the member suggesting we get into profit-making hospitals, clinics and all the other components of health care? I hope he's not because that's not what this government is all about.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Minister, we have serious questions about whether or not you have any ideological principles left as it comes to the displacement of these women workers in the health sector, I have to ask you, in spite of the fact that your Jobs Ontario program is 95% targeted for male workers in this province and only 5% of women are able to take advantage of your one and only job creation program in this province.

My colleague has raised legitimate concerns and we as a caucus have raised legitimate concerns about the displacement of thousands of women workers. These are highly skilled, highly trained, highly qualified women, and they're not interested in your 20% figure, your ideology or anything else. They are worried that if you do the same thing to these women workers that you did to day care workers in commercial centres -- your government treated them like scabs. You gave no respect, you gave no acknowledgement of their years of service, their qualifications and their seniority.

My question, Minister, is, will you not now come forward and say you will protect these women workers who will be displaced by your policies, that they will have access to jobs in Ontario and have priority access to those jobs? Because your government action lost them their jobs, you have a moral responsibility to ensure that you've provided an additional one for them if you're going to change the status of their contribution. Will you not state in the House that you'll protect their seniority rights so that they'll have employment in this province?

Hon Mrs Grier: I told the House earlier that over the last three years we had increased our spending for community-based, long-term care services by over $300 million. That represents jobs. That represents care being provided that was not being provided before, much of it, I agree with the member, by women workers. We are creating by our long-term care investment new jobs for workers, many of them women, in long-term care.

As I said some months ago when I indicated that we would provide new services through not-for-profit organizations, we would in each community work on transition plans, work on labour adjustment plans, so that people who are currently working for for-profit agencies would of course by virtue of their training, their expertise and their knowledge --

Mr Jackson: You didn't do anything.

The Speaker: Would the member for Burlington South please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- be eligible and be prime candidates for new jobs. As some of those agencies change, there may not even be any need to change employer. As some of those agencies are melded into multiservice agencies of course those people are likely to be first in line not only for existing jobs but for the many new jobs that will be created through our expenditures.

INCINERATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy, the minister who is responsible for the three superdumps in the greater Toronto area.

The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, your predecessor, who is now the Minister of Health, announced a ban on the construction of new incinerators in the winter of 1992. In January 1992, at a hearing in Detroit, Michigan, she said that she had no technical evidence to support the theory that incinerators pose a greater risk to the environment than landfill sites.

My question to you is, do you agree with the former Minister of the Environment's position to ban the construction of new incinerators in Ontario despite the lack of supporting research?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Yes, I support my former colleague's position, I reconfirm it, and I want to make it very clear that she did not say what the member claims that she said she said.

Obviously, if you burn something, you produce ash. You also produce gases that go into the atmosphere. Things do not just disappear. You have to deal with those gases in the atmosphere that may be toxic. You also have to deal with the ash, which usually will end up, I suspect, in landfill.

Mr Tilson: The minister did say that. In fact, the transcript from Detroit says it quite clearly on a question as to what evidence she had for supporting the conclusion that she had read. She said, "I have no technical evidence that I can produce for you today about that." It's as simple as that.

Hon Mr Wildman: "Today."

Mr Tilson: She has no technical evidence, and you know that. The former minister has, and I expect you have, no technical arguments to support the position of your government.

If I can provide you with some, and I'll be pleased to give you some, that suggest that incinerators are more environmentally sound than landfill sites, would you open up the IWA process and allow communities to consider energy-from-waste facilities as an option?

Hon Mr Wildman: The problem with the proposal the member is putting forward is that it would require an ongoing supply of a significant amount of waste to supply the incinerator. This community, Ontario, this province, is very committed to the 3Rs: reducing, reusing and recycling.

In terms of recycling, we have three million households in this province already involved in the blue box. If we went to incineration, much of that material that is going into recycling and is being diverted from the waste stream in that way would go into incineration.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West is out of order. Order.

Mr Tilson: I'm afraid that's the blatant rhetoric that you've been putting forth since your government came to power. You have no statistics whatsoever to justify the position you're taking.

The study that I'm referring to in my second supplementary is a study released in the Solid Waste Technology magazine by Dr K.H. Jones, and I'm going to read a number of quotations that she makes.

-- "The relative risks associated with landfill options are far greater, from 10 times to 20,000 times higher, than for incinerators."

-- "Landfills emit significantly higher amounts of greenhouse gases than comparatively sized incinerators."

-- "Landfills are projected to generate landfill gas for more than 110 years, whereas incinerator emissions stop the day the facility stops."

Finally, "When a new landfill and incinerator are compared from a risk perspective, the landfill appears to pose greater health and environmental risks."

Those are a number of findings that this person made in this magazine.

1500

Minister, will you set aside the philosophical blinders that both you and the former minister have had and look at incinerators as a viable option for municipalities to consider in this province?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member suggests that in some way or other I have some blinders on. I think he should be careful, in making his comments in the House, not to set up a straw person. The fact is that he compares landfill and incineration as if they were the only two choices. I want to point out to him that in Detroit, where there is no blue box program, that may in fact be the case. This province has a serious commitment to recycling and we are not going to divert materials away from recycling into incineration.

LEGAL PROFESSION

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, the Ministry of the Attorney General Act --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Etobicoke West, please come to order.

Mr Chiarelli: -- which governs your responsibilities --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What are you doing? You're expanding landfills.

The Speaker: I caution the member for Etobicoke West that he is to come to order. The member for Ottawa West with his question.

Mr Chiarelli: My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, the Ministry of the Attorney General Act, which governs your responsibilities, states quite clearly, "The Attorney General shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario."

These days crises abound in the legal profession and the public interest requires you to take some leadership and to provide assurances to the public. The public has a right to be concerned about the $122-million deficit in the lawyers' malpractice fund as identified by independent auditors.

The legal profession, as you are aware, is in a unique position of operating its own malpractice insurance fund through the lawyers' professional indemnity corporation. As you are aware, this fund is now in a deficit position to the extent of $122 million. If this were a private corporation, all the experts tell me that it would be shut down today.

Minister, my question to you is this: What have you done to assure people in Ontario that their claims against lawyers are protected in light of this $122-million deficit and what are you doing to reduce the level of malpractice suits people in Ontario feel compelled to start against Ontario's lawyers?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): As I know the member is well aware, the legal profession in this province is governed by the Law Society of Upper Canada, a self-governing body, which is responsible for the discipline of its own members. It is indeed important that we recognize that when there is a self-governing body of this sort, it is important that that body have the accountability that is required.

The benchers of the law society have been made aware of this issue. They have taken steps to address the shortfall in the fund. That will certainly create great difficulties, I'm sure, for many who are practising law in these very lean times in the province. But they are exercising their responsibility.

I have had a number of discussions with both the treasurer of the law society and with other benchers of the law society about the seriousness. I am satisfied that the society itself is taking the action that is required, both to deal with the shortfall and to deal with the discipline areas in their own act.

There has been a very serious review that has gone on for some time about discipline in the profession, and that goes on. That decision will be made by the benchers, and if changes are needed in the act, the benchers will recommend them to us and they will have our support.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response.

Mr Chiarelli: The buck still stops on your desk, Minister, inasmuch as you are the ultimate person responsible to superintend the administration of justice in this province. I have not heard any strong assurances from you that the public is fully protected by reason of this deficit not being immediately addressed. I'm still awaiting that assurance from you.

In a similar type of problem, we have reports that large numbers of lawyers are getting out or are considering getting out of the legal aid plan because the plan now owes Ontario lawyers over $30 million in fees dating back to January. These are moneys the province is obliged to pay under the Legal Aid Act. Partially as a result of this, as of April 22 a whopping 2,447 lawyers, about 10% of the Ontario bar, had not paid their insurance levies, and about 1,700 had failed to pay their obligatory registration fees entitling them to practise in Ontario.

My question to you is this: As the minister required by law to superintend the administration of justice in this province, do you think this situation will contribute to a healthy and vibrant legal profession? If not, what are you doing to protect the public from a weakening legal aid system and a profession in crisis or near crisis?

Hon Mrs Boyd: First of all, I'm completely amazed that a member of the profession itself would be expecting me to take some kind of unilateral action when the profession has always been a self-governing profession in this province and in fact the law society is taking the action that it is expected to take by its own members, is expected to take by the public and is required to take under the act.

I think the member needs to be very, very clear that it is never appropriate, and I could not imagine that the member would think it was appropriate, for any Attorney General to suddenly take over in the kind of way he's suggesting in a self-governing profession. That simply is not the way we've done it in the province of Ontario and is certainly not the way I intend to do it.

In terms of the legal aid plan, again we have agreements with the law society around the way in which that plan is administered. It needs to be at arm's length from government so that there is never any suggestion that political influence is exercised over who is eligible for legal aid. The legal aid plan is very well aware that the cash-flow practices that it has followed for many years are creating difficulty at this point in time because the recession has caused so much difficulty for lawyers in terms of the available dollars they have at the end of the year to pay their fees.

The legal aid plan and the law society are working together to try to resolve this issue, and they have our full support and are consulting fully with us in their efforts to do so.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is to the Solicitor General, and it concerns the London child pornography probe. Minister, as you are aware, there are 55 known victims. Some 39 people have been charged, nine people have been convicted and 243 criminal charges have been laid. Police have recovered more than 1,000 videotapes and 850 photographs which have been made of these 55 victims.

We now know that the investigation has spread to Toronto, Windsor and Barrie. Now it may in fact have spread across the continent and reach as far afield as California. Minister, do you have a handle on how big this child porn ring really is? Do you know how far its tentacles have spread?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): As the member will know from previous questions and answers here in the House, my discussions with London Police Chief Fantino and my further discussions with our own ministry officials apprise me that indeed there is an issue of going beyond the immediate jurisdiction of London.

Indeed that's why in my conversation with Chief Fantino and the police service there and my ministry officials, there is discussion of going further even than our Project P and ensuring that we have the ability to cross the jurisdictions to do the kind of investigative work and police work that Ontarians expect.

I believe that Chief Fantino and his police service in London have done that job there, and we are now working with him to ensure that the job that needs to be done elsewhere across Ontario indeed takes place.

1510

Mr Runciman: I'm not sure from that response that the minister does have a handle on it, and I can understand it, because we're still seeing new information come in on a daily basis.

Minister, the London Police have had calls from forces as far away as Detroit and California asking about linking their own child porn investigations back to the one in London. Informed sources are indicating that a tape or tapes currently in the possession of a police department in the Los Angeles area in fact originate from London.

Last week London Police Chief Fantino asked for a province-wide task force on child pornography and you said that such a joint task force was a priority. Given that this thing may stretch right across North America, when will you announce this joint task force and how will you ensure it gets rolling as quickly as possible?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'm pleased to advise the member that within the next few days there will be a meeting of OPP officers, ministry officials and officers from London to do exactly what he is talking about, that is, to determine the scope of the project required and to make recommendations with regard to what resources and from where and how they should play a role.

I think all honourable members would understand that that is a role for police experts, police professionals. I've given the political commitment on behalf of this government that when those recommendations are ready to be made to me, they will be responded to on a priority basis, and I maintain that. I believe the process is following the way Chief Fantino had asked it follow, and it's certainly consistent with the procedures that we have built in. I know all honourable members would want to support the police and my ministry officials as they put together a response plan to this most hideous of activities.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable Minister of Environment and Energy has a reply to a question asked earlier by the member for Mississauga North.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY SPENDING

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Last week the member for Mississauga North asked for some information about the work of my ministry, and I'd like to report back.

On June 27, an event will take place at the MOE office to express thanks to all those who helped bring about the Environmental Bill of Rights, including members of the EBR task force, ministry staff members who worked hard on this project.

This event has no bearing whatsoever on the excellent work of the ministry's emergency response program. Contrary to what the member said, the program has not been, nor will it be, gutted. We are proposing to make this program more effective and save money at the same time, which is a good thing.

The proposal is to establish an afternoon shift so that until 10 pm each weekday evening there will be ministry personnel on the job and immediately available in the event that they are needed to respond to an emergency, such as a spill of toxic material. Our experience shows that it is during the day and early evening that the highest number of incidents occur. Between 10 pm and 8 am and on the weekends, which are times when the number of incidents is much lower, there will be staff on call who will respond to an event in an emergency.

We expect that this change, besides improving the number of people who will be available, will save between $700,000 and $1 million, but no final decisions have been taken.

Just for the member's interest, the cost of the get-together for EBR is $627.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): It is clear that if one took a look at the demeanour of the minister in responding to my question of last week and today, one would see two different approaches. The minister has now recognized that indeed the emergency response organization has been curtailed. There is no question that there is and has been a change, that there will not be immediate response -- and I underline the word "immediate" response -- by the Ministry of Environment in the event of a toxic spill should that spill take place after 10 pm on weekdays or any time during the weekend.

I believe the Minister of Environment should justify and give to us, the people of the province, the reasons he believes it is right that there is not going to be immediate response to toxic spills in the event that they take place after 10 pm weekdays or during weekends. How can you justify that?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member knows from my earlier comments that there will be people on call after 10 pm and on weekends. They will be available so that if they get a call on their beeper, they will then go and attend to it. But the member ignores the fact that in the past there was no afternoon shift. What we are now instituting is one additional shift, so until 10 pm there will be actually more service, and more immediate service in case of emergency. As I said, it is prior to 10 pm that most of the incidents occur, not after 10 pm or on weekends.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources how the new stumpage system is going to affect the income of those independent loggers who harvest wood through district cutting licences.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): At this time there is no plan to include independent loggers who acquire crown timber to cut by means of a district cutting licence. The intention is to negotiate first with the large FMA, forest management agreement, holders, which is ongoing at this point in time; second, to negotiate with other large order-in-council licence holders, many of whom may in fact have a sawmill or a wood products mill of that type. Only after those types of licences have been negotiated through the new business relationship would Ministry of Natural Resources officials begin to deal with smaller order-in-council licences and then finally with district cutting licences. That probably will not happen for at least a year, I would think.

Mr Ramsay: I have a licence to cut crown timber here, commonly known as a DCL, a district cutting licence. It does reflect the new stumpage fees. For instance, white pine is now $6. Of course, the old limit of $10,000 of fees is still there, so basically what this means is that DCLers are going to be able to cut about 45% less wood than previously. They're keeping the ceiling of stumpage fees payable to the crown the same as before, yet have increased those stumpage fees by 45%, so therefore less wood is going to be cut and they're going to suffer a loss of income, and also their ability to employ other independent loggers to cut wood by about 45%.

I'm asking that the ceiling be raised; I'm not arguing the stumpage fee increase but that the ceiling be increased so they could at least maintain their present income.

Hon Mr Hampton: The stumpage issue the member is talking about is not related to the new stumpage system. It's related to the dramatic increases in lumber prices that have happened across North America in the last year or so. Two and a half years ago, lumber was selling for about $200 per thousand board feet. It is now selling, if you include the US-Canada dollar differential, for about $600 per thousand board feet and more. Since the stumpage system is essentially linked to the market price, stumpage systems across the province have gone up.

I would say to the member that all our information indicates that lumber mills of all sorts, types and sizes indeed have the revenue to be able to pay those stumpage fees, so if somebody is having trouble getting a pass-on of revenue from a sawmill company that is buying the wood from the DCL holder, that's a private business relationship that the government really doesn't have anything to do with. If you look at the new Crown Forest Sustainability Act, which we introduced in the House on Wednesday, some of the answers that your constituents may be searching for will be found in that act.

1520

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Earlier this month I gave the Minister of Labour an example of how his one-sided labour legislation, Bill 40, is destroying the balance between management and union rights. Today I would like to ask the minister about yet another example of how devastating the impact of Bill 40 has been.

You know that the private operators who had planned to operate several short rail lines formerly owned by CN cannot do so because of the successor rights section in Bill 40 which requires the purchaser of these lines to honour as many as 17 collective agreements that CN had previously entered into with several unions. In my own community, the proposed recreational steam train which was to run on the rail line between Waterloo and St Jacobs has been derailed by Bill 40. This train is very important to the tourism industry in my community and to job creation.

Minister, my colleagues have on numerous occasions asked you to take action. Can you tell us what you have done to protect jobs? What are you going to do to ensure that the short rail lines can continue to be kept in service as private enterprise?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): We might start by finding out why CN and CP are dumping some of the lines and why they wouldn't continue operating them. But I want to tell the member across the way that Bill 40 has almost no effect on the short-line railway issue. There has not yet been a short-line railway potential purchaser or operator that has gone to the board, which is an option they have, for an amalgamation, which they would probably get. So as yet, they haven't at all explored all the avenues that are there. We have made it very clear that various ministers are working together to sit down and try to work out some arrangement with anybody who does decide they want to purchase one of the short-line railway operations.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, you know you could have facilitated the process of handing these lines over to private enterprise and you could have preserved jobs. Instead, you and your colleagues are playing political games.

On March 22 of this year, my colleague the member for Simcoe West introduced Bill 142. This act would have amended section 641 of the Labour Relations Act to exempt a business involved in the purchase of a section of railway track from the successor rights provisions introduced by Bill 40. Minister, this issue could have been resolved by now if you and your government would agree to the swift passage of this bill. Will you agree to pass the bill this session? If not, why do you stand in the way of job creation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I wonder if the honourable member across the way ever looks at the other side of the issue. The successor rights provision of Bill 40 was put in there so that workers, and primarily it was designed for office towers and food operations and cleaning establishments, who had negotiated a contract and a decent wage were protected when the bidding came up, which meant a new bidder might move in on that operation and take it over and decide he wanted an entirely new group of workers, or, if he kept the workers who were there, was going to make sure he cut the wages and benefits they'd negotiated.

Now you're telling me that we should rescind this bill, sacrifice all those workers to meet a requirement that could be met by the railway people if they went before the board and asked for a consolidation. I'm certainly not going to destroy protection that's there for workers in the province of Ontario.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Health. I know the implementation of the new health card is going to require some arrangement with the Ministry of Transportation to get the photographs taken. As a member who represents quite a large rural riding, most of the people I represent don't live near a driver's licence bureau. In fact, in my own community of Orono we are many miles from the nearest driver's licence bureau.

What are we going to do about the people who have no cars to get to those facilities, and the many people who have no driver's permit even if they had a car, and the many of them who are elderly and have great difficulty travelling very far? Could you tell me and my constituents if there are any arrangements being made to facilitate the problem I put before you this afternoon?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I can say to the member that as we look at how best to implement the new photo health cards, we certainly are looking at ways of meeting the needs of the kinds of situations the member has described. We're looking, for example, at mobile registration units that could visit places such as nursing homes and remote areas. That was done when the previous card was introduced by the previous government, and we found ways of very effectively getting to the homeless and people in remote communities. It is certainly our intention to do that this time.

Let me point out to the member that there are currently only 20 offices of the Ministry of Health that somebody can go to if they have to replace their OHIP card. By our partnership with the Ministry of Transportation, there will now be the additional 360 offices of the Ministry of Transportation. We see that as expanding the convenience and the access to places where people can get a new card.

But people will be given the details of how they can get their card, and we certainly intend to make it as easy and as flexible as possible.

Mr Mills: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Can you tell me what sort of arrangements will be made to notify the folks who live in my riding? Are they going to have some advance notice so they can make some plans ahead of time? How do you propose to do that?

Hon Mrs Grier: Details of the new card and how people will receive theirs are currently under development and I hope to be able to announce them more specifically in the fall. But let me say to the member that what we intend to do, beginning in February 1995, is to notify people when it is their turn to get a new health card, because this will be implemented over a three-year period; it won't be everybody all at once. Each eligible cardholder will be sent a letter telling them how to apply, and as I say, it will take three years to re-register the entire population of 11 million people.

I would say to him and to his constituents that they will make it easier for this process to work if they keep OHIP up to date on their current address, and we hope people would do that. Change-of-address forms are available at ministry offices or by calling 1-800-268-1154.

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

Hon Mrs Grier: We hope people who have questions will call that number for details.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I ask the minister if he will support public hearings being held on Bill 91, the farm labour organization bill, and if so, how many weeks he thinks should be taken for that job to occur.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Bill 91 is a bill that's had a lot of consultation, a lot of discussions involving a lot of the farm groups across this province. Over a period of a year or so, a consensus was reached between the farm groups represented and the labour groups that were working together in a committee. They actually produced two reports, one of which is an original task force report, and finally they put forward a number of amendments which have been circulated and checked out by legal officials on all sides and have been agreed to. I don't think there's any need for any long, lengthy public hearings process here.

Mr Elston: It's very interesting that this member knows, that is, the Minister of Agriculture and Food knows, that the only reason we're into Bill 91 is because his government decided under Bill 40 to remove the agricultural exemption from the Ontario Labour Relations Act. He knows very well that they offended all the people who participated in the consultation by bringing in the current view of the plan. He knows he has offended almost all of the farm community.

I want to know from the Minister of Agriculture and Food what the NDP have to fear by preventing farm organizations, which he says now support the legislation, by preventing farmers in general from coming in front of the Legislative Assembly to voice their individual concerns about this farm labour bill. Why won't they let the people be heard when he knows right well that the farming public in all aspects do not want his legislation? Why are they shutting down the voice of agricultural producers right across this province? When will they learn their lesson in democracy?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The honourable member for Bruce usually gets it right. But this particular time, the leader of his party is going around the province saying that this legislation is going to lead to strikes on family farms and trying to alarm farmers. In fact, I just read an article: She was in my area a week ago and gave a speech saying that this is going to cause a lot of strikes and difficulties for farmers, which is not the case.

1530

The amendments have been presented and have been agreed to. There will be no strikes, no lockouts. That has been agreed to.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Hon Mr Buchanan: All of this legislation, these amendments, has been agreed to by all parties. I think it's important that Bill 91 be passed and we get on with some other legislation.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. Motions. Petitions.

MEMBER'S COMMENT

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege to correct the record of a statement I made in this Legislature last Tuesday, May 31.

After reviewing Hansard, I determined that I may have been a little hard on the member for Norfolk when I was commenting on the inadequate response from the Minister of Municipal Affairs to a concern raised by a delegation of municipal officials from the township of Norfolk -- perhaps not the most appropriate choice of words.

I was trying to make the point that the government is not responding to the very serious concerns raised by the people of Ontario, and I guess I was a little hard on the member for Norfolk, but those people want to be listened to, not ignored, by the ministry.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. We would require unanimous consent to return to motions. Is there unanimous consent to return to motions? Agreed.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 8, 1994, for the purpose of conducting public hearings on the matter designated pursuant to standing order 108 with respect to the sale and distribution of ammunition and community-based crime prevention programs.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a combined petition that has been submitted to me by the Bethel Chapel in Belleville, the Belleville Wesleyan Church and the Full Gospel Tabernacle Church in Frankford, Ontario. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows. It is submitted as the result of a vote taken at the 73rd Annual Convention of the Toronto Archdiocesan Council of the Catholic Women's League of Canada.

"The Ontario government has introduced legislation on same-sex rights and benefits and this bill has had first reading in May, 1994; and

"Whereas Catholic doctrine teaches that homosexual relationships are not and, indeed, cannot be considered conjugal relationships, and that procreation and rearing of children involves responsibilities and sacrifices that are assumed by the majority of heterosexual couples;

"We, the undersigned, assembled at the 73rd Annual Convention of the Toronto Archdiocesan Council of the Catholic Women's League of Canada, June 1 and 2, 1994, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the bill proposing same-sex rights and benefits be voted down unanimously by all members of the provincial Parliament on second reading."

I will sign this petition.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition that was circulated yesterday at Whitchurch-Stouffville Mobility Transit Access Awareness barbeque at Margaret Britton's house.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Metro Licensing Commission and Metro council passed bylaw 95-93 prohibiting the cross-boundary accessible taxi services which serve mobility-impaired individuals; and

"Whereas cross-boundary accessible transit service originating in the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville by AAA Transport Ltd is being adversely affected by the Metro bylaw; and

"Whereas dozens of citizens of Whitchurch-Stouffville rely on this accessible taxi service to travel to jobs and hospitals in Metro;

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

"That the government of Ontario work with the council of Metro Toronto and the Metro Licensing Commission to exempt accessible taxis from existing legislation and bylaws to allow them to better serve the residents of Whitchurch-Stouffville."

Mr Speaker, I know there's an omnibus bill going to be passed, hopefully, by this government and all the members quite quickly that will deal with this issue, because Metro council hasn't.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario. It is signed by 58 members of the Blessed Sacrament Church in my riding.

"Whereas the Roman Catholic archbishop of Toronto has asked church members to register their opposition to Bill 167; and

"Whereas many Catholics disagree with the archbishop's pastoral letter on this legislation; and

"Whereas we wholeheartedly support extending full human rights to all our brothers and sisters in Christ; and

"Whereas providing same-sex couples with the same rights and obligations as other families will strengthen society;

"We, the undersigned, from Blessed Sacrament Church, Toronto, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature pass Bill 167, An Act to amend Ontario Statutes to provide for the equal treatment of persons in spousal relationships."

Mr Speaker, although I'm not a member of Blessed Sacrament Church, I support their petition and have affixed my signature.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I've been asked by constituents of my riding to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, commonly known as the same-sex benefits bill, Bill 167, will change the definition of marriage and allow homosexual couples to adopt children; and

"Whereas it does not reflect the mainstream priorities of the people of Ontario or the priorities that the Ontario government should be dealing with; and

"Whereas Lyn McLeod has stated a future Liberal government will move to enact this legislation; and

"Whereas this bill passed first reading with NDP and Liberal support; and

"Whereas the bill would recognize homosexual couples and extend to them the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill caters solely to the demands of a local special-interest group; and

"Whereas redefining marriage and forcing the private sector to pay same-sex spousal benefits will have serious negative economic and social ramifications,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw the same-sex bill and encourage all MPPs to vote against the bill on second and third readings."

I have signed that as well, Mr Speaker.

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): 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 person of their choice under the protection of the law and without any discrimination based on whether the individuals are the same sex or opposite gender; and

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

"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,

"We, the undersigned, support the extension of full rights, benefits and responsibilities accorded to heterosexual couples to persons in same-sex relationships."

1540

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition that's signed by about 50 residents of my community. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and to me.

"We, the undersigned residents and voters of Brampton South, draw the attention of the Liberal member of Parliament, Bob Callahan, to the following:

"Whereas the majority of residents in the Brampton South riding believe that privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships;

"Whereas we feel that redefining the definition of 'spouse' to include same-sex relationships also in turn redefines the meaning of 'family' and is not only detrimental to Canadian society but also harmful to the emotional, mental and social wellbeing of the children of our country;

"We, the constituents of the Brampton South riding, feel that our member of provincial Parliament should be representing the view of the majority of voters in this riding and vote against the same-sex benefits bill at the next reading."

I've affixed my signature thereto.

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition signed by dozens of people from my constituency:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition signed by many residents of my riding of London South. It's phrased as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the protection of human rights is a fundamental principle of international law and is an overriding responsibility of all governments; and

"Whereas the NDP government of Ontario has introduced Bill 167, the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994; and

"Whereas we are very concerned about the elimination of discrimination against gay and lesbian relationships; and

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

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

"To actively support relationship recognition for lesbian and gay citizens of Ontario by showing leadership on this basic human rights issue and voting yes to Bill 167, the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, and asking your colleagues to do the same."

I have affixed my signature to this petition and I support it.

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I also have a petition which I'd like to present today. It's from residents in the Frankford area in my riding, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

"That the House refrain from changing provincial laws that deal with family, marriage and children and that the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation' be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code."

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has introduced legislation on same-sex rights and benefits, and this bill has had first reading in May 1994; and

"Whereas Catholic doctrine teaches that homosexual relationships are not and indeed cannot be considered conjugal relationships and that procreation and rearing of children involve responsibilities and sacrifices that are assumed by the majority of heterosexual couples;

"We, the undersigned, assembled at St Patrick's parish June 4 and June 5, 1994, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That Bill 167, proposing same-sex rights and benefits, and any amendments thereto be voted down unanimously by all members of provincial Parliament."

I will sign this petition.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, are of the opinion that private insurance companies are exploiting Ontario motorcyclists and snowmobile operators by charging excessive rates for coverage or by outright refusing to provide coverage;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, understand that those insurance companies that do specialize in motorcycle insurance will only insure riders with four or more years of riding experience and are outright refusing to insure riders who drive certain models of supersport bikes; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe this situation will cost hundreds of jobs at dealerships in the motorcycle industry and is contrary to the rights of motorcyclists and snowmobile operators;

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

"That the government of Ontario should study the feasibility of launching public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance."

I affix my signature to these petitions. There's a total of 716 signed.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have another petition I'd like to read to the Legislature of Ontario:

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

"We unconditionally support Bill 167, the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, introduced in the Legislature on May 19, 1994.

"These proposed changes mainly affect same-sex spousal benefits and adoption rights, as well as the inclusion of same-sex couples in the definition of the term 'spouse.'

"Gay and lesbian couples should be acknowledged in fair, equal and respectful terms. We support the extension of full benefits and responsibilities accorded to heterosexual couples to persons in established same-sex relationships."

Mr Speaker, you'll be pleased to note this is also repeated in French. I have affixed my signature to the petition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

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

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

I have supported this petition as well.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Mr Speaker, as you know, there was a rally held outside these chambers yesterday attended by over 1,000 motorcyclists. I have petitions that were handed to me and signed by 3,000 motorcycle riders and motorcycle enthusiasts. It is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe this situation will cost hundreds of jobs at dealerships and in the motorcycle industry and is contrary to the rights of motorcyclists and snowmobile operators;

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

"That the government of Ontario should study the feasibility of launching public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance."

I affix my signature and hand this to the page from Kitchener-Wilmot, who also supports motorcycle riders.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LONG-TERM CARE ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

On motion by Mrs Grier, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care / Projet de loi 173, Loi concernant les soins de longue durée.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister, would you please make a brief statement.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): This act ensures that a wide range of community services are available as alternatives to institutional care for the elderly and the physically disabled.

ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND VULNERABLE SPECIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ESPÈCES VULNÉRABLES, MENACÉES OU EN VOIE DE DISPARITION

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

Bill 174, An Act to revise the Endangered Species Act and to protect Threatened and Vulnerable Species / Projet de loi 174, Loi révisant la Loi sur les espèces en voie de disparition et visant à protéger les espèces vulnérables et les espèces menacées.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Yes, Mr Speaker, thank you. This bill will expand the Endangered Species Act as it currently exists, it will allow the minister to create an advisory committee, it also includes flora and fauna to the Endangered Species Act and it would allow the minister to acquire land or enter into land management agreements in order to protect species and to build better ecosystems for the future of the province of Ontario.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES), 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX PRATIQUES DE GESTION ET AUX SERVICES DU GOUVERNEMENT

On motion by Mrs Boyd, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 175, An Act to amend the Statutes of Ontario with respect to the provision of services to the public, the administration of government programs and the management of government resources / Projet de loi 175, Loi modifiant les Lois de l'Ontario en ce qui a trait à la fourniture de services au public, à l'administration des programmes gouvernementaux et à la gestion des ressources gouvernementales.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister, do you wish to make a statement?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Yes, Mr Speaker. Today I have the pleasure of introducing for first reading a Statute Law Amendment Act (Government Management and Services), 1994. As the act implies, the act amends a number of statutes to increase the efficiency of the management of public resources by the government and to improve the services that the government provides to its clients, the people of Ontario. The matters included in the act have come from diverse sources, including many recommendations of the government's clients and proposals from experts in the public sector.

Our government expects the measures in this bill to save time and money both for the public and for itself. I invite the House to give timely passage to this bill.

YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr120, An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge.

1550

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): I believe the member for York East was the last one to debate the issue.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm pleased to continue this debate. What I'd like to start off with is reminding people of Martin Luther King and his struggle with the issues of black people in the United States and their struggle for equality, also people like Agnes Macphail and her struggle for pension reform and pay equity for women.

Today we're looking at another struggle. The gay and lesbian community has struggled long and hard to bring this issue to the House today. I want people to remember that this is a human rights issue with a very long history, and we have to take a look at that pattern. What is it? I see this as a pattern of fear, fear of the unknown: white men being afraid of black people taking their place in society, men being afraid of having women have equal rights, and now we're seeing people afraid to let gay and lesbian people take their place and have their right to equality.

I'd like to parallel this also in terms of fear of people who are different. I know that there was a time when deaf people too were not allowed to adopt children. Deaf people who were intelligent, healthy people were told that they could not adopt children. Finally there was recognition that deaf couples were good parents, that they could adopt kids just like people who have hearing.

This to me is a parallel. We now see gay and lesbian couples fighting for the same rights. I think all of us have to realize that the Ontario Human Rights Code allows any gay or lesbian individual to adopt a child; now we're simply looking at this as couples. It includes investigation then of both people's backgrounds. Without this legislation, if one individual wishes to adopt a child, you're not even looking at this person's partner and seeing that we have to be responsible for checking the backgrounds of both members of that family. This is actually a very critical issue.

We also have to look at studies such as Dr Gottman's, who is a well-known clinical psychologist. In one of her studies, she looked at heterosexual and gay and lesbian family relationships and saw that in fact children raised by gay and lesbian couples had absolutely no difference in terms of their social and emotional development. Also, Charlotte Patterson, who did another study looking at children who were raised by heterosexual parents versus children raised by gay and lesbian parents, again saw that social and emotional development was in no way detrimentally affected for those who were raised by gay and lesbian couples.

We have to also remember that the Ontario association of social workers has come out very strongly in supporting the right of gay and lesbian couples. This is an organization with a very large membership.

Another important point is to realize that this legislation is a challenge. It's a challenge to make sure that people who have the right to equality get that right. We should also look at the fact that many big businesses such as the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Sun are actually already in support of this type of legislation. They have realized that this is an issue of accountability, and also economically we all benefit because if, for example, people who have been involved in a long-term relationship are now allowed to have their pension given to the surviving member of that relationship, that person is no longer going to be dependent on society. Should they find the need to seek financial support, they will then have access to their partner's pension. This is economically reasonable.

Also, we have to realize that Ontario is seen as being a very tolerant, open-minded society. This is legislation that will include the right of all individuals and it is in fact something that is enshrined within the Canadian Constitution, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is very clearly an opportunity to put an end to discrimination.

In closing, I would like to remind all the members of this House that you yourselves have to remember that your own children, your own grandchildren, your own relatives may be members of the gay and lesbian community. What I'm asking you to do is to vote on legislation that will show your children, grandchildren and relatives that you have a positive attitude, that you accept these people for what they are. This is a very positive first step which will allow for positive self-esteem, opening many doors and showing young lesbian and gay people that they are accepted as equals in society, and increasing by a large measure the respect of all individuals.

I would like to thank very much the many members from my constituency who have called in, who have sent letters and have shown their support on this issue.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I listened to the honourable member's speech the other day and today and I think that many of the speeches in this House fail to recognize the fact that this is not a human rights issue, this is a children's issue. I just want to give you a scenario. Let's say that the natural parent of a child took up a gay relationship and the natural parent of the child died. If this law is passed, it would give the gay partner a primary right over a blood relative. I suggest you look at that, and I'm sure if the Attorney General and her authorities look at it, she'll see that's the case.

1600

I suggest to you that one of the things we miss in this entire debate is the fact that we are really talking about children and what could or could not be the case of children. I'm sure there are lots of fine gay people. Many people in the legal profession I've met were excellent lawyers, excellent friends. But I'm suggesting to you that what you're talking about here is far beyond what society itself is prepared to recognize. You're making a change with a swipe of the pen that will change the entire face of the Ontario community. I think you're doing it in such a way that without any previous looking into the question you're going to amend -- what is it? -- 57 statutes by a single line in a particular piece of legislation. Minister, you've gone far too far.

One of the terrible things about this is that in the next election the Conservative Party is going to use this as a political jewel in its platform. They're going to drag these fine gay people, lesbians and gays, through the mud and it will all be a direct result of your bringing in a bill that could not possibly, I suggest not possibly, be accepted by this society or the people who are in this Legislature. By doing it, all you've done is fuel a bad atmosphere for these people, and they don't need it.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask the member to withdraw that offensive statement impugning motives.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Which one?

Mr Arnott: Yes, which one? He could withdraw the whole two-minute response, but particularly the one that imputes motives to the Conservative Party.

The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, I don't see anything unparliamentary in the statements I've heard in this House on many occasions. Further questions or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): In response to the member's speech today and the previous day, I can only say, specifically dealing with employment benefits, that he has talked about the purpose of this legislation is to end discrimination. I must say I stand up in my place periodically, from time to time, when the government puts forward benefits that I don't understand, that are stopping employment in this province, and that's what this legislation is going to do. It's going to be a larger cost to employers and to others with respect to the economy. If I've followed the rationale of the government in expanding the definition of "spouse" with respect to employment benefits -- you list off the pension benefit provisions, and there's a whole slew of statutes, the Corporations Act, the Courts of Justice Act, the Education Act, the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, the Municipal Act, and on it goes -- the problem is, why wouldn't you, the government, expand that whole issue of employment benefits to everyone?

I submit, member, that this bill is in itself discriminatory to others in this province, and I'm saying that if you're going to put forward legislation that's going to end discrimination, do it for all. Don't just pick one group. Do it for everyone. You haven't done that.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, you haven't done that. There are a whole slew of people who are being left out of the whole issue of benefits in this province whom you have not included. I would submit that if you're going to put forward legislation to end discrimination with respect to benefits, then don't create more discriminatory legislation, and that's what you've done with this legislation.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I am pleased to respond in questions and comments to the comments by the member for York East. Let me say that I support this piece of legislation. One of the other members raised the question of adoption, that somehow adoption is not going to be in the best interests of the children.

Let's look at the laws in this province. The way adoption is conducted is that no one, not even heterosexuals, has a right to adopt. They have a right to apply. That's all we're changing in this legislation. For deciding, it still is what is in the children's best interests. It seems to me that the main criterion for deciding should be whether people are willing to make a commitment to provide a loving and nurturing environment that is going to allow that child to grow and develop, and develop a sense of self-worth and be a productive member of society. That should be the key criterion in deciding who gets to adopt.

In my view, a married couple could be qualified for that, a single person could be qualified for that, two brothers, two sisters, could be qualified for that, and certainly a same-sex couple can qualify for that if the criterion is, are people willing to make the commitment? Are they willing to make to the commitment to allow these children to grow and develop, and develop a sense of who they are and a sense of self-worth and be able to make a contribution to our society and community? That's really what the issue should be all about.

I definitely disagree with some of the arguments that have been made against adoption. I was deeply displeased by my colleague the member for Yorkview and his just awful comments that he made in the debate last week, but I ask people to really remember what is important: the best interests of the children and how we allow them to nurture and develop.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): In response to those last comments about what is in the best interests of the child, I have an article that I was just reading from Dr Joseph Berger, a Toronto psychiatrist, that appeared in the Toronto Star of June 3. The headline reads, "Adoption by Same-sex Couples Not in Children's Best Interests."

I just want to read some excerpts from it so that we can see what parts of the psychiatric community, at least, think about this issue. Why is adoption by same-sex couples not in the children's best interests?

"Because all the psychological understandings of the past hundred years have demonstrated to us that the best environment for a child to grow up in is a home with two parents, one of each sex, living together in a committed, loving relationship.

"Anything less is less than the best. The tragedies of parental death, separation, divorce or abandonment are unfortunate, and have to be coped with. But why deliberately put children by choice into a situation that is less than the best?"

That is one thing that he says. In a paragraph further on, he goes on to say:

"We all pick up the psychological identifications that lead to us becoming men and women, from our parents. If the parental picture becomes distorted, whether through the absence of one parent or the presence of two of the same sex, something is going to be missed, and that something cannot be replaced by visitors who remain a vague and peripheral presence in children's minds."

These predictions aren't accurate, but they are an indication that things may go wrong. Things are going wrong today when unforeseen events occur, so why would we deliberately put children in a position where things would go wrong?

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

Mr Malkowski: I certainly appreciate the comments that have been made by the members for Brampton South, Dufferin-Peel, Oxford and Mississauga East, but I want to specifically respond to the comment from the member for Brampton South. I don't accept the patronizing point you made that said it's not in the best interests of the child. I find that patronizing.

I've got a letter here from a young child, 10 years old, who says:

"To all MPPs:

"My name is Jesse Giroux and I am 10 years old. I am writing this letter to ask you a favour. I am asking you with all my heart please vote yes on the same-sex rights bill. I live with two mothers. Please don't split this family up by voting no."

"Sincerely yours,

"Jesse Giroux."

This, to me, is a message, and a very powerful message, that is coming from a young child. How dare you say it is not a human rights issue? This is this child's human rights issue. This is a child's issue and it is a human rights issue.

1610

I'm going to say over and over again to the members in this House, all the members sitting here, are you willing to accept the challenge and vote yes to this legislation to raise the standards and show there is respect and tolerance in this province? Show some leadership in Ontario. Show the federal government, show the world, that we in fact do accept gay and lesbian people and are willing to give them their rights and allow these people to be seen as accepted members of society.

All the members here who have children, who will have grandchildren, who have relatives, think twice. You also may have people in your family who are members of these communities. Respect them. Think of respect and tolerance.

Interruption.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for St George-St David, before you start, I would ask the members in the gallery not to show their emotions or any signs whatsoever. This is allowed only in the House. I would expect that you give us the cooperation we require.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have looked forward for quite a while to an opportunity to speak to this debate. I want to talk, essentially, about two things. One of them is to make the case for voting for the bill, which I have done on first reading and will do on second and, with luck, I hope to do on third as well. I also want to talk briefly about the process of getting here and about how we can move on.

To make the case for, I spent a lot of the last two weeks thinking about the issue that seems to be the crucible for many and the shoal which some have foundered upon, it seems to me, and that is this notion of a traditional family.

I've thought long and hard about that. I come from what you would call a traditional family. I suppose I'm a member of one. This weekend I spent with my wife and my child, and I thought, what is it about the family, that family, that makes it something that we as a society should treasure?

I thought, it's not the gender of the parents, but it's the relationship of love and caring, of nurturing, of sacrifice sometimes, that partners make for each other and parents make for children and children will make for parents. Those are the values that make that unit a strong and abiding one. Those are the values that we as legislators, that we as individuals, should encourage, support, advocate for. It seems to me a specious argument that those values, that that love, that caring, that nurturing, that sacrifice, cannot equally occur in a family which has two mothers or two fathers as they can in a family with a mother and a father.

I have met, in the course of my life and political life, many families where there are lesbian mothers or gay fathers who have a relationship that is the epitome of those values of love, of caring, of nurturing, of sacrifice, which we should encourage because they are providing an environment we should all applaud for the children being raised in that environment. They are giving, as we all would for our own children and hope our parents gave to us, to make the children's lives better, sacrificing for the children. I've seen it.

I guess, at the end of the day, I understand. I grew up in Barrie, Ontario. That's a community in which you would see expressed some of the views we're seeing expressed here on the concern about the issue of adoption, the concern about the issue of family. Yet it's from that community and from that upbringing that I draw the values that I say today can be applied as equally to a family made up of two fathers and two mothers as it can be to a family made up of a mother and a father.

But we also have to expand even what is the notion of the traditional family, because I think too about the people I've met in the course of the brief political time that I've had the pleasure of representing St George-St David, of many kinds of family relationships that have shown those characteristics and have survived.

I can think, for example, of one young man I saw who was raised in a traditional family and who, through difficulties, was rejected out of that family by his father, and is now living on his own in downtown Toronto on welfare but has managed, through his own courage and skills, to do very well in school to become president of the student council.

We have seen many examples where parents have become divorced and the mother or father remarries and a child has a circumstance where she or he now has two parents who live in the house and the mother or father lives in a separate house. The child copes with that and in a loving and caring environment can adapt and has adapted quite successfully to that environment. That is not, I would suspect, what people argue for when they're arguing for the traditional family, yet time and time again we see that all across this province as a shape of a family we're living with. And single-parent families, like others, survive, do well, have those values.

So I reject an argument that says one type of family, one type of unit that has those values, cannot be acceptable. I think it can and it is, so I don't see the validity of that argument.

I understand that it has an emotional characteristic to it and in some cases a religious objection. I respect the differences of opinion, but I think we can make the case for it. In a reasonable and reasoned debate, we can make the case for it, that when we have a chance to talk to individuals, to talk to people, we can as legislators convince people that there are other valid ways.

I've been trying, too, to think about how that might have been done in a different way. It's an issue that troubles many who I think would call themselves small-l liberals yet it none the less troubles them. I'm sure all members have people who have come and talked to them and expressed their concerns, who say: "I support a law that extends rights and obligations to same-sex couples, but I have a problem with changing the definition of 'spouse,' changing the definition of 'family.' Help me through this."

I had a phone call today in my office. One woman in my riding who lives at St Clair was trying to help us find a way through it. She said, "What if we could designate the partner as the legal guardian?" I'm not saying that's the answer, but it's interesting to see that process of trying to work it out, how people are trying to say, "Can I find a way to protect what I view as traditional and yet grant equal rights and obligations?"

Whether it's a perfect answer or not, the government itself, ironically enough, did it in another piece of legislation altogether, which it will do a consequential amendment to if this bill passes: in the Consent to Treatment Act. AIDS Action Now and ACT came forward and made representations to that committee that the partners in same-sex couples needed to be able to provide the consent to treatment in hospital environments, and as a result the bill was amended to provide for a new category called "partner" who could provide a consent to treatment. It left what I guess I would call the traditional definition of "spouse" untouched.

1620

Whether that is a middle ground that Ontarians could accept, I don't know, but there are models there that perhaps we could talk about that could help convince people that there is a way to move this forward. I hope we can do that and I hope we have that opportunity. I am speaking today to urge my colleagues in my party, even in the Conservative Party and obviously the diehards in the New Democratic Party as well to vote for it, because I think we can rise above the environment that has been created, unfortunately, by the way the debate has been joined over the past month and year, to lead by example of passing this bill on second reading and have the debate around the particulars of finding a way to make Ontarians accepting of this.

My concern is that the way the debate has gone to date has forced an all-or-nothing split that is pushing people to say yes or no. My concern is that the way the debate is going, too many people are saying no. My preference, obviously, is that they say yes, but I'm seeing it in my riding and in other ridings, even among some family members of mine who cherish tolerance but who, when pushed, are saying no. I mean, there have been quotes of various polls on this issue, but even on the issue of adoption we see that, when pushed, people are saying no. When you ask them, "Do you support the redefinition of 'spouse' to include gays and lesbians?" there is a predominance of yes in Metropolitan Toronto, for example. When adoption gets thrown in, it actually changes that variable, and that's unfortunate.

But I think if we can have an education and a process -- perhaps it was a consent-to-treatment-like route that might have provided that alternative, where people could have accepted more easily the granting of equal rights and obligations in a way that was not felt so emotionally to attack their view of family.

I don't know if that's the right answer, but I think it is important to note that it's not just a question -- because I hear this mentioned and I don't accept this argument either -- of it being about special rights and a special-interest group. That is not what this is. This is a struggle for human rights. I disagree with my colleague and others who say it is not about human rights. It is about human rights.

We have recognized and accepted in this province since 1986 that people are entitled to protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. I remember that debate. I remember very much that the same kind of arguments against that, in terms of the deterioration of the family, of the breakdown in social order, were made then as are made now.

Well, I haven't seen it. I think the evidence shows quite the opposite, and I think the same arguments that are being made now will be shown to be equally invalid by the experience. I go back again to the argument that says, "By granting special rights, you're hurting me." I go back and think about my family. I do not understand that argument at all. I've wrestled with it and I cannot understand it, how my family is in any way endangered by saying that a same-sex couple is a family. In fact, I think it ennobles my family to recognize those same virtues, those same values in another context. It adds the very values that we as a society should treasure. It recognizes them and nurtures them, and we should support that, because it is the right thing to do.

Sometimes we are called as legislators to decide between what our constituents in a majority might tell us and what we believe to be the right thing to do. There are those who say, "You should listen always to your constituents." The debate has raged among legislators from time immemorial, from Edmund Burke to Winston Churchill, and I think that we have a responsibility as legislators to recognize and acknowledge the views of constituents but to not be led around by them when we believe that in the long run we can do the right thing.

I think this is an issue on which we can, in some ways perhaps, acknowledge the emotionality of the issue, the difficulty of the issue, but we can lead and we should lead. So I want to make it clear that I disagree with those who are going to vote against this bill. I disagree with the logic based on merely representing constituents, because I think we can rise above it, we can educate it, provided we find the language and the appropriate way of doing it. I hope that this debate can do that.

I listened on the first day of the debate to some of the debate that occurred and I was disappointed, because I thought that it was more a debate about partisan interests and sometimes low tactics than it was about the pith and substance of how we can as legislators get to the right answer on this. I understand and appreciate that there are people in this House who, for personal, philosophical, religious or other grounds, oppose this bill. I respect that. I respect their right to have those views, to express them and, frankly, to vote them.

But I have a problem with those who would use that difference for partisan reasons that would focus on a group, a set of people, and target them to further partisan ends. That I find unacceptable; that I think is homophobic; and that I will always decry.

It's a very difficult issue, I know, and all caucuses have dealt with this and debated it with difficulty. The split in my caucus is evident. The government has had to provide a free vote in its caucus to deal with it, and that's unfortunate.

I know that when I ran in the by-election what I said I would do was introduce a private member's bill to try and encourage the government to move forward on a commitment that was on its books, when the individuals in this House ran, as a part of the policy. I'd hoped, by virtue of introducing that bill, to encourage the government to move forward.

I do want in that context to pay, I hope, a personal tribute to the Attorney General, who I think is seen, and rightly so within her own caucus and by others outside, as a champion on this issue. For that, I think she deserves credit. She has, from what I understand, in any event, had to bring forward the issue three times to her own caucus and finally got it through on the third time, and deserves credit for that perseverance as well.

There are times when you have to be an advocate, sometimes in the situation where individuals even within your own party are opposing what you would like to do or are not as enthusiastic as you. I view my role as that. It is a more lonely role right now than the Attorney General's proved to be, but I will continue to play that role, to be an advocate. I did so by moving Bill 45.

1630

I think I acknowledged when I introduced it that it was not as much or as far as the government and the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario and others in my riding and elsewhere wanted, and I think I said at the time it was because my caucus and my leader did not want me to go further. I clearly did. I think it was recognized at the time, and I'm sure the Attorney General will remember that I said at the time that if the government introduced its own bill and went further, I would vote for it, and I'm glad to be able to do it and have the opportunity to do it.

I wish we had had this debate earlier, though, to be fair. I'm sure that's not the fault of the Attorney General, but I was thinking about the opportunities where we might have had this debate in a less politically charged environment and atmosphere.

I think it was perhaps in November 1990 when the government first committed to provide certain benefits to its own employees in the public sector. That might have been an opportunity to at least present something, even if it was a white paper, a draft bill, to begin the process of having the discussion in public in an environment where there were people who were proponents of it and prepared to defend it.

Perhaps it could have been in, I believe it was, 1992 -- I'm not sure of the month -- with the Haig decision out of the Ontario Court of Appeal. That would have been an opportunity to say, "The Ontario Court of Appeal has recognized that it is unfair and inappropriate to discriminate against gays and lesbians." That could have been a good jumping-off point for a debate and frankly probably should have been.

Perhaps it would have been in the fall of 1992, when the Human Rights Commission ruled on Michael Leshner's pension application case and the government decided to accept the result. That might have been an opportunity then to engage the debate.

I think each of those opportunities was missed and I think it's unfortunate, because we've placed ourselves in an environment -- and this I much regret -- where the political calculus has governed more than the human rights calculus, and as a result -- and I think Thomas Walkom's article on the weekend in the Star, unfortunately, has elements of an analysis that is accurate in it -- it is forcing people to choose between yes and no.

I much regret that too many are choosing no, that there isn't room for a middle ground in this debate, despite the fact that I think Ontarians generally do see a middle ground and would like to see a middle ground in this debate, that there is a generosity of spirit in Ontario, there is a sense of tolerance that we can appeal to, that we can use. I had hoped and would hope that we could have done that.

I do want to note that I will continue to be an advocate in this bill within my caucus and with this issue in the future.

I'm not prepared to predict the result of second reading. My hope is that any efforts that are ongoing -- the many efforts that are ongoing by CLGRO, Liberals for Equality, many other groups within all parties -- to convince members to vote for it will be successful. It will be on a vote-by-vote basis, but my hope is that at the end there will be enough.

I think it's interesting to note that in this issue people talk about the weight of public opinion. Well, it's very difficult in this environment for many gays and lesbians, in many different environments, to come out and lobby in support, because we as a society have in certain environments not shown a tolerance that I think we should. Yet despite that fact, I have received literally thousands of letters of support from individuals who are prepared to say, "I am in favour." It's also not just from gays and lesbians, it's from heterosexuals too who are saying that this is the right thing to do, because it is not special-interest groups seeking a special interest. It is about human rights, and all who are in favour of this recognize that.

We have heard over the past while about how some of the church groups have begun to organize against this. I think there are also many clergy and many churches who are in favour of this, who think it's the right thing to do, who think it is a matter of human rights. I was very pleased to see that well in excess of 200 clergy of various denominations signed a petition recently, and many more have added their names since then. A number have spoken to me personally and said, "This is the right thing to do."

There are some, I know, who have expressed concern with an organized campaign within a church against it. I am one who doesn't believe that we should limit debate and limit the opportunities for debate, but by the same token, that provides an opportunity for those who view that using the pulpit as a forum is somehow inappropriate. They also get the right to say that.

We have to think about what we're actually doing here. We are being asked to vote on a bill which in my view will do no more than this: make the laws of the province of Ontario consistent with the charter. That is actually not a courageous thing to do. It is nothing but complying with the supreme law of the land.

There are those, I know, who think that we are going too far, that this is too much, but I disagree. We have a charter that recognizes the basic humanity and human rights of all individuals and this bill is nothing but putting that into effect and into motion.

When I was thinking about making this speech and others who've made this speech, it felt a bit sometimes like the speech that Shylock makes in The Merchant of Venice. It has that sense of a crying out against injustice, of a crying out for a recognition that we are the same, that we are celebrating our common humanity and we should not be focusing on the differences, on isolating people. There is a really unfortunate element that it almost feels like it has to be that, that it is a cry for being treated equally. It shows how far we have to go to make our society open, tolerant and caring of gays and lesbians.

I think we have made great strides in a number of years. I'm sure that many members here and others will remember being in playgrounds when they were young where insults passed around in playgrounds were often very hurtful and would include insults based on sexual orientation. We've all grown up from those times and have recognized that those are inappropriate, that they are hurtful. My hope is that we as a society and that we as legislators can also grow up from those same feelings as legislators and appeal to that same sense that said, "No, that was inappropriate," so that we can then vote in favour of this bill and say, "Not supporting gays and lesbians in this context is wrong, is against human rights."

I just want to very briefly talk about the riding of St George-St David. It has many members of the gay and lesbian community who are very supportive of this bill, and I am here to express their support -- and their anger at those who are voting against it.

There are also other communities in my riding, much like many other ridings, which have a diversity of views on this. I've viewed it as my role to speak in favour of this bill to those other communities, to explain. I think after having discussions, people understand, people can come around, people will support it. Some won't, but most do. I think each of us as legislators in this House can do the same thing in our communities.

1640

I hope finally that this bill is not defeated, because I think there will be an enormous and unfortunate sense of betrayal by the gay and lesbian community at the promise that once was. I also am concerned about the backlash that might occur against the gay and lesbian community. I hope and appeal to the best instincts in all Ontarians, which I know are there, to not be involved in that.

Finally, I urge my colleagues in the Liberal Party to vote for this. I thank those many Liberals who have phoned me and encouraged me in the support that I am expressing for this bill. I hope that with them we can build a coalition within the Liberal Party in favour of this.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We have time for questions or comments.

Mr Tilson: I'd like to comment on the member's speech. There's no question that this is his half-hour of glory. It is an issue that he ran on and I must say that I congratulate him for his courage. I don't agree with most of what he has said.

His leader of course took one position and has completely flip-flopped and even said, in Niagara-on-the-Lake over the weekend, that she wouldn't even allow -- the wording from the Toronto Star was, "In fact, she said she would not even allow as Premier an MPP such as St George-St David Grit Tim Murphy -- who has the largest gay and lesbian constituency of any riding in Canada -- to push ahead with a private member's bill on same-sex equality rights." She has completely reversed her position, even on this.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): No, that is not what she said.

Mr Tilson: That's what the Toronto Star said. If the Toronto Star is wrong, that's fine, but that's what the Toronto Star has said and that's what a number of other pieces of the media have said.

One of the concerns I have with respect to this issue is the amount of data and statistics that I believe the Attorney General has an obligation to come forward with. If this bill passes second reading, I hope she will have that information available at the committee stage: legal opinions and administrative opinions with respect to this issue.

I go through many of the pieces of legislation and I believe that it's going to cost many of us more. It's going to cost taxpayers more. It's going to have a great economic effect on the people of this province. I have stood in my place and opposed many of the policies of this government that keep adding on to the obligations of employers and taxpayers to pay for things in this province. We have been taxed to death. Notwithstanding the civil liberties of this issue, the taxation is enough.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I want to rise to commend the member for St George-St David for what he has said today and to commend him for his continuing support for this legislation and indeed for the principle under very great difficulties. I extend to him the concern that we have around the position he has been put in by the changes that have happened in terms of his leader's position.

I would also say to the member that I agree with him that there ought to be some way in which we can find a consensus around language if all we're talking about is semantics. We as a government have indicated very clearly that we are prepared to do that. We would like to hear from the member what his suggestion is, what he is suggesting as a consensus around language in terms of definition. If we indeed can find language that he can deliver on in a way he has not been able to deliver on promises made in the past, then we would be more than happy to consider that language.

The issue remains, as he has stated, that no one is going to lose anything at all through the passage of this act. What we will do will be to enhance within this province the ability of individuals to maintain the safety and security of their families. It is not, as the member from the third party suggests, that this will add greatly to the cost.

This is something that is a basic human rights issue. The member for St George-St David is quite right. I'm sure that at the end of the day he, unlike many of his colleagues on that side, will be able to look himself in the mirror.

Mr Callahan: I rise again to speak to this matter. I got chastised the last time by members of the Conservative Party for saying that this will be dragged as a political issue through the election, dragging human beings through the mire.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Was it Monday or Tuesday?

Mr Callahan: Well, I just heard from the member for Dufferin-Peel who alluded to it.

They keep talking about my leader's commitment. My leader's commitment was quite clear. It had nothing to do with adoption and she's made it quite clear that she cannot take that extra step. Yet the Conservative Party continues to try to distort that issue. It's sad that in a debate of this magnitude about human beings, a party such as that long-standing party can stand there and play politics. In fact, the Attorney General just almost got into it as well. That offends me.

We're talking about human beings and their rights. We're talking about children's rights. Speaking of my colleague, I disagree with him. It is not a human rights issue. I've said that. It's a children's issue. In fact, what we're doing here is distorting it. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the people of this province, who I think are fairminded people, understand that.

I might say as well that if you check my record and what I said when I voted for Bill 7 in this House, which was in fact a human rights issue for people of the gay and lesbian community --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Let's not break up families.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham West, come to order.

Mr Callahan: They were being denied the right to accommodation to live in and to jobs. That was a human rights issue. I voted for it and I considered that to be a proper vote. But this vote, and I have to disagree with my colleague, is not one about human rights; it's about children's rights. I wish we'd put the emphasis on the children, which is where it should be. It's not being put there.

Unfortunately, what it's doing is just fuelling a big issue for the Conservatives during the next election. I'll tell you something: It's going to be a very unproud day to have to run in an election when that happens. It's going to happen and you know it's going to happen, because they say it every time they stand up.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I want to congratulate the member for St George-St David for the position he has taken and the remarks he has made with respect to equality of rights for gays and lesbians.

I want to say on the issue of special rights to which he has spoken that I agree with his remarks. The gays and lesbians are asking for equal rights, not for special rights. They're asking for the same rights that are accorded to heterosexuals, that they be extended to gays and lesbians. They're asking that in the same way that we proffer on some individuals, based on their sexuality, rights and obligations, this apply to them as well. That is a human rights issue.

It is also children's rights, as the previous member speaks of. That's what gays and lesbians speak to as well. Not only is it a matter of human rights but it is also a matter of children's rights as it relates to gays and lesbians. Perhaps the previous member confuses the way in which he speaks about it, but yes, indeed, it is about children's rights as it relates to gays and lesbians.

On the whole issue of what Thomas Walkom said and whether or not this could have been debated earlier, I am not sure there's ever a good time. I'm not sure 1992 was a good time for this debate, or that with respect to the Leshner case, once we've had that decision, that might have been the right time, or that you could have a debate where there is no yes or no to it.

This is a complicated issue. We've presented rights that extend beyond Bill 45, it is true, but we need to go this far. If there is language that can then be debated that maintains rights for gays and lesbians, I'm all prepared for that.

On the issue of the free vote to which the member spoke earlier, does he say, because I was confused, that we should have had a free vote on this side but that they should not have a free vote on that side, that Lyn McLeod's position should prevail with all the members? It would be interesting to hear his response to that.

1650

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Now the member for St George-St David has two minutes to respond.

Mr Murphy: I appreciate the comments of the various members in response.

To the member for Dufferin-Peel -- I'm sure he's watching on television -- I want to say that I know his source for that is the Toronto Star. I have checked with my own sources, and this is Bill Walker's first mistake. That is not in fact what Lyn McLeod said, and that story is inaccurate on that point.

I also reject the member for Dufferin-Peel's argument about cost. In fact, the Toronto Star, which was right on this subsequent issue, has quoted an economic study of a few weeks ago which said there will in essence be no cost impact, or little: one tenth of 1% of the benefits costs of payroll. So I just don't see that as an argument against this.

As to the member for London Centre, the Attorney General, I heard her comments at the Metropolitan Community Church yesterday in which she made reference to the civil rights debate in the United States in saying that sometimes defeats lay the ground for future victories, in reference to this bill. I guess my view is that successes lay a much better ground for future successes, and that perhaps a bill that could have garnered more support in this House, a majority support in this House, might have been a way to build for future successes. That was my hope for what I'd see, and maybe we'll still see it and maybe it won't be a defeat. I hope so.

As to the member for Fort York, he says there is no good time to debate this issue. I think an earlier time would have been better, and the opportunities were there.

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

Mr Murphy: My time is up. I could go on, and I'm sure I will in other circumstances.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Madam Speaker, I have a point of order: I just want to point out that -- I don't know if this is actually a point of order or personal privilege -- that was clearly not Bill Walker's first mistake. I just want to put that on the record.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. Further debate?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I'm pleased to rise to speak to this bill. I believe there has been one other member, from the Liberal caucus, who is from a rural riding who spoke on this bill. I'm pleased to rise on this side of the House as the first rural member to speak to this bill.

I would like to address primarily four areas. I want to talk about the rural-urban nature of this issue; I want to talk a few minutes about the religious nature of this issue; I want to talk about the who of this issue and to put a human face on this issue for everyone; and finally, I want to talk to the politics of this issue, which is what many people are dwelling on.

First of all, I want you to know that I will be supporting this bill. I think people should know that a year ago, or perhaps even six months ago, that might have been different. The government decided to introduce this bill. I've spent some time doing my own research, my own reading and becoming familiar with this issue. I have come to the conclusion that this is a human rights issue, that this is an issue that deserves the support of all people in this House and of all people in this province.

Many people early on -- I met with the clergy in my riding before this bill was even introduced -- talked to me about the fact that this was really an urban issue and that as a rural member I shouldn't be supporting this. I listened to their debate; I listened to their point of view. They saw this very much as a religious matter, as a moral issue. Since having met with them and talking to many other people, I've decided that it's not a religious issue and it's not an urban issue.

There's a lot of pressure on people, gay and lesbian, when they reach puberty, when they reach their teens and into their 20s, a tremendous amount of pressure in rural Ontario, and perhaps in urban Ontario, to act and pretend that they're heterosexual. Many gays and lesbians in fact get married because of societal pressure; some even have children. But later on in life, the marriages of many of these people who have a different sexual orientation fall apart, for obvious reasons. There are children who are left over from these marriages who end up in a different kind of relationship. Very often these people refer to themselves as being in the closet, and I think the people who oppose this bill should consider what they're doing to other human beings when they continue to be part of a society that puts pressure on people to go on living in a closet.

When that pressure is so great that people will get married and have children even though it's not what they feel inside that they should do, but the pressure of society and of their family leads them to do that, to be like others, to conform, when that's not their orientation or that's not what they really would like to do, surely we, as the legislative body of this province, should step forward and provide equal opportunity and try to change the attitude of society towards people who have needs towards same-sex partners. This is clearly about equality, it's about rights and about benefits and it overlaps in rural areas and urban areas.

Perhaps in the past, the reason this was not an issue in rural Ontario is because gays and lesbians leave rural Ontario and move to the city where there is less visibility, where they are not noticed as much. There's a lot of hurt and a lot of pain for the people who have to leave their communities and for the families who see their children leave home for that reason. I've talked to such people from rural Ontario and indeed from northern Ontario who have seen their sons and daughters move to Toronto where they could maintain a lifestyle that was consistent with the way they felt. Those families will be proud and feel good if this legislation passes and those people finally, over a period of time, can return home and feel they are part of a compassionate society.

I've received many calls and letters on both sides of this issue. When this bill was first introduced, I expected that in my riding I probably would only receive letters in opposition, but that's not true. I've received calls and letters of support and opposition, and indeed I've received letters from farmers -- which was a surprise to me, but it's true -- saying, "Please support this bill." That's why I've come to the conclusion that this is truly about equality and human rights and it's not an urban issue and it deserves the support of rural members as well.

On the religious front, many people are saying this is a religious matter. They quote scriptures to indicate reasons why same-sex benefits should not be provided or rights of same-sex couples should not be provided. Very often, they pick out one passage or another to quote and say that means we should not do this as a government. But if we look at religions, Christianity and others, you can always find a line or phrase that suits your own needs. Whether you're in favour of exploitation or whatever your pet niche is, very often you can find something in the scriptures to satisfy your needs. We know there are religious groups in this province and this world that do not allow their loved ones to have blood transfusions and they say that's because of the scriptures. Here today we have people telling us that providing same-sex benefits should not be allowed because it says so in the scriptures. There are many other lines and many other quotes we could bring forward to suggest that being humane, being fair, is a much more dignified goal than the few lines that are brought forward by some people who want to hide behind a religious cloak in opposing this legislation.

1700

If we had lived in the southern United States in the early 1800s, I'm sure there were many churches and very religious people in the southern US who had several slaves they went home to after church on Sunday. They believed they were doing the work of God and that they were good Christians, very religious people, yet they maintained a system of slavery, which is clearly abuse of another human being.

We have progressed beyond that stage in our history, but we're at a point now where we have an opportunity to take one more step for humankind. In terms of the religious aspect of this, this is not a black and white issue. To date, 370 religious leaders have come forward in support of this bill and 126 different municipalities across the province have sent in letters to say they support this bill. In fact, many of them have endorsed this because they are providing same-sex benefits to their employees.

This is not a religious issue either. This is not about morality. One thing I want to make clear: This is not about marriage. The word "marriage" is not part of this bill. This is not about promotion of a lifestyle. Marriage and lifestyle are issues that clearly can be left to the churches of this province and not something we are attempting to legislate under this bill. This is about human rights. This is about equality.

The other point I would make under religion is that when I grew up as a child and attended church and Sunday school on a regular basis, I believed we had a loving God, who loved all people and wanted us to treat everyone equally. We have lived in a society that for a long time has not treated gays and lesbians as equals. They've been discriminated against for a long time, which goes back to my earlier point, that people who are gay and lesbian very often live in a closet. I think those people who want to talk about or hide behind this as a religious issue should look at other passages of the scriptures and think about their God, their Supreme Being, as a loving person who would like us to treat everyone equally and not continue discrimination.

Let me go on to my third point, to try and put a human face on this issue and talk about some of the people who are affected. If we cast our thoughts back to the by-election in Victoria-Haliburton, we heard from the Conservative Party that this concept was a cost which was going to be an enormous burden on business, especially on small business. That's not true. Since the bill has been introduced, we have had a number of businesses come forward, more than 20 businesses that already provide the benefits being proposed in this bill. Business leaders have said that this will not add any cost. They take this issue for granted. Those people who continue to talk about this being a cost and a burden on business are not listening to what business leaders are saying, because business leaders are saying this is not going to add a cost.

The only way this could be a saving is if employers went out and deliberately only hired single people, refused to hire people who were married in a heterosexual relationship, or any other relationship for that matter, and that's not true. This is not about dollars and cents. This is not about business. This is about equality.

There are many people over the years who would clearly be identified as a gay or lesbian person. In doing my research and looking at this issue, I looked at some books, publications on this matter. I was somewhat surprised by the likes of the people. In this case, they're all deceased. I decided not to name living, existing people. The list includes many people who are known to everyone: people like Plato, Alexander the Great, Lord Byron, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Frederick the Great, Gertrude Stein, Andy Warhol, Walt Whitman, Tchaikovsky and Virginia Woolf. Those are just a few of the people that I found who would clearly be identified as gay or lesbian. I could go on, but I won't take the time to do that.

Continuing to want to put a human face on this issue, I have a couple of letters and a couple of notes. One is from a 10-year-old who lives with her mother and her mother's partner. I asked her to write some notes about her family, her family unit as it exists. There's been a lot of talk in this Legislature about what is a family and what isn't, traditional and non-traditional, and people trying to put all kinds of spins on it. This is a 10-year-old in her own words who wrote both sides of the page, and I will just take some of the quotes.

She first of all says: "Some of my friends have a mom and a dad, and some have just a mom. I don't think a family needs a mom and a dad. I like my family. My parents" -- and she has crossed out the word "moms" and inserted "parents" -- "aren't the exact same. My mom likes music, and" her partner -- and I've substituted those words -- "likes sports. They are both very responsible with me. They are very caring with me. They won't let me go somewhere without telling them where I am going. They have taught me right from wrong."

On the other side, I picked out one sentence, because she's clearly aware of the kind of relationship, the kind of family that she lives in, and she even knows the word "lesbian," which surprised me. She says, "I don't think that living with lesbians will make me a lesbian when I grow up."

Further on, commenting on this issue, she has some understanding, and she says: "It's sort of like treating blacks different from whites in South Africa. Just because they are different doesn't mean they are bad people." Those are quotes from a 10-year-old.

As I sit in my seat today, I received a letter, a letter which, indications are, is from an employee of my ministry. It's over two and a half pages, and I'm not going to read it, but there are a couple of passages that I think are important to put on the record. He starts out by saying that he is an employee of this ministry and that he's writing as a gay man. I want to pick out some of the quotations here. He says:

"I am a responsible person; I am a taxpayer; I am a loving son; I am an uncle; I am a good friend; I am a person.

"Yet, to many in this province I am not any of these things. All that I am, all the good acts I may do, all the accomplishments I achieve are invalid because of my sexuality. My character and my principles are discounted by the very fact that I am gay. Can you picture a life where every day in some way or another you are reminded that you are a social outcast?"

Later on he talks to the issue that has been raised in this House about the benefits and about concerns around access when your partner is in the hospital and where family members only are allowed in. He says:

"Imagine, if you can, that your spouse, your life partner is denied the right to visit you in the hospital after your accident because she is not your 'family' member. Imagine that if one of you were to pass on that you had no legal right to each other's pension, inheritance or property. Imagine that life-and-death decisions could not be made by the person you love and have shared your life with."

1710

This letter goes on. I'm not going to read it all, but there's one more line I would like to read. It says, "I look forward to the day in the not-too-distant future where I can live my life completely -- not the one I live now partially hidden in shadow."

Then, the final sad part of this letter is the fact that it's signed with an X. In this day and age, surely people could come out of the closet enough to be able to sign a letter to their employer, to their boss, and not feel that kind of insecurity. Surely the time has come for us to move forward.

Finally, I want to talk for a few minutes about the politics of this issue. It seems that this now has become a political issue rather than an issue of human rights and treating others equally. We have the opposition parties, and some of our own caucus, for that matter, but from the Conservative Party the member for Willowdale the other day talked about the free vote in the Conservative caucus and that the free vote meant that in this case they would all be voting against this bill.

That is unfortunate, because in this House all of the members sooner or later will be touched by this issue. They will have family, children, uncles, aunts, perhaps grandchildren who may be or are gay or lesbian. Members should not forget that. This is not an issue that will go away. This will and does affect everyone. In fact, I've found in my experience that some of the people who have relatives, family members who are gay or lesbian, are the most outspoken against equal rights. I don't understand this, but those people who will vote against this issue should remember what they're doing because their family -- son, daughter -- could be gay or lesbian, and they can never take back their vote.

The Liberal official position is somewhat strange. In the St George-St David by-election, the Liberal position was very clear. They wanted us to come forward quickly with legislation, and the quicker the better. It seems now that has changed. I hoped and I still hope, because I believe that the Liberals, and especially the member for St George-St David, who spoke so eloquently earlier today, could bring forward some amendments, some ideas, some compromises so that we could deal with this bill so that it would pass. I certainly would be very interested in hearing suggestions on the adoption issue, because I think there certainly is room to find some compromise, some language or, in the formal sense, some amendments that would make this acceptable to more people.

The one area of adoption I would like to touch on, though, is when there are existing children. The people who speak out about being opposed to adoption on this issue like to create the impression that gay couples will go down to the store, where they will adopt a child, as if they would pick the child off the shelf. These are the kinds of words and views, the kinds of hate literature and bigotry, that come from the opponents.

That's not the way it is. That's not the way it is now for heterosexual couples. Children's aid societies and other adoption agencies screen prospective parents very carefully. It's very difficult to adopt a child who is not a relative of yours.

Clearly the adoption issue needs to be clarified. There's a lot of education that needs to be done on this issue. People have been deliberately, in my view, misleading others when it comes to the adoption side of this bill.

However, on the side of an existing child, I happen to believe very strongly that when there is an existing child, in most cases with their mother, her partner should have a right to adoption so that when any medical difficulties or any legal decisions need to be made, that partner would be the one who could make the decisions. I read some quotes from a 10-year-old earlier who alludes to that a little bit: If anything happened to her mother, who would make decisions for her.

If you're really interested in the child, as the member across the way talked about and talks about quite often, as this being something about children, you should take note of that fact and be interested in the children and not simply in politics. I believe strongly that if we're going to amend the adoption section of this, which I think would be a useful exercise to do, I would maintain that we must preserve the right for partners to adopt existing children.

A couple of final things: There have been a lot of letters to editors, there have been some speeches in this House even, which quote some of the hate literature which in many cases comes from the United States. I would urge all members of this House and the public, before they start quoting some of the publications that come out of the United States, to take a look at what they're saying and what they're writing, because some of it is very borderline.

Finally, to wrap up, and putting this in plain language, what this bill is all about, this bill, simply put, provides same-sex couples with the same -- and I emphasize the word "same" -- not more rights and benefits than heterosexuals who are living in common-law relationships. That's what it does.

Finally, in 1863 in North America we had the emancipation address which freed the slaves in the southern United States. That was in 1863. In 1917 in this province we had a debate in this House and we decided to treat women the same as men and we allowed them to vote in Ontario for the first time. The rest of the country saw the wisdom of that and they gave women the right to vote in Canada in 1918. Lo and behold, in 1920 we decided that native Indians, our first peoples, would be given the right to vote, that they would be treated the same as the rest. Finally, in 1955, not so long ago, in the province of Ontario, we decided that native Indians would have a vote here in this province, that they would be treated the same as others. In 1994 the people in South Africa decided that apartheid would go and blacks would be treated the same and would have a vote and that would reflect democracy.

1720

So I believe that 1994 is the year in Ontario we should pass the bill that provides people of the same sexual orientation the same benefits and the same rights as other people.

The Acting Speaker: Now we have time for questions or comments to the member.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It's probably the best speech I've heard the minister make in this Legislature. It's one of the few times, actually, that I've heard him stand in his place. It was very compelling, some of his points of view. Others I think were a little less compelling. I would suggest I strongly disagree.

Let me first make comment on the consultation part. This consultation process you went through with this piece of legislation is rather similar to all your consultation. As the president of the small business council said, consultation that consists of talking to the NDP is much like talking to trees. There isn't consultation.

I guess the consultation part that I don't understand is, if you were truly interested in incorporating a piece of legislation that could buy in enough votes to pass it, why wasn't there consultation? Why did you not put this piece of legislation before the parties in opposition and maybe they could have found places to support it? Yes, there probably would be sections that would not be supportable. Then you could go away and determine whether or not you wanted to bring in a piece of legislation that you saw fit, or whether you wanted to go with some kind of compromise. You weren't giving that offer.

Now, don't tell me on second reading you're going to make that offer, because the only way you can do it is by saying, "Look, we'll make amendments if you pass it on second reading." Quite frankly, on this side of the Legislature, the trust factor is minimal.

To put it further, you want to talk about a free vote. Yes, all 22 Conservatives oppose this, and the 22 Conservatives had a free vote. Whether you like it or not, it was a free vote, and I can tell you, as a member of this party, I've stood in this Legislature and opposed this party's position on a number of issues and voted against it. So there were free votes.

Finally, I might add this point: Your party suggested it was a free vote. It was your leader who said, "If you vote against this legislation, I won't go to your riding during the election," so how free is that? With all due respect to the minister, I think the Premier got it backwards. I think what he should have said is, "If you vote against this piece of legislation, I will show up in your riding during the election."

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I know there are some other members of our caucus who want to make some remarks commending the Minister of Agriculture and Food for his remarks, because in listening to --

Hon Mr Buchanan: And Rural Affairs.

Ms Haeck: I'm sorry. It is an extremely important point, the Minister of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs, and definitely my riding appreciates your ongoing commitment to that issue. But in listening to his remarks, over the weekend I again was asked by my constituents why I support this bill, and his remarks really brought it back again, and that is, when I look at the people who are in the members' galleries, some of whom I know -- and I said to a constituent, "Those people who I know, how could I look those people in the eye, to say to them that they are not equal to me, that they are not able to receive the same rights and benefits and responsibilities as I do?"

It has to be personalized; it has to be said in the clearest of terms that we are all equal. All of the citizens of this province, all of the taxpayers of this province, have to have the same rights, responsibilities and obligations. I would put forward to the member for Etobicoke West that I'm not sure how he, in himself, can stand in this House and say that his rights are above those of someone else. I would challenge him to really think about this, to seriously think about how he can put his rights, privileges and obligations above those of someone else.

I think the time is now. It has been far too long, but the time is now.

Ms Poole: I will be very brief. I just wanted to commend the member for Hastings-Peterborough on a very thoughtful, sensitive speech, and I am particularly delighted that he highlighted the need to protect our children.

It is perhaps one of the ironies of this whole debate that on both sides people are talking about the protection of children. But I think in a very sensitive way he pointed out that in many cases children are already existing in families where there are same-sex couples, and those children do not have protection. Those children can be taunted at school, they can be harassed, they can be made to feel like an outsider because their moms or their dads aren't the same as everybody else's. In the event that their mom's or their dad's partner dies, that child does not have the protection of being able to legally stay with the mom or dad whom they've known for many years. I believe, as the member for Hastings-Peterborough has said, that one reason every member of this House should be voting in favour of Bill 167 is because it does provide protection for our children.

The Acting Speaker: We have time for one more question or comment.

Mr Tilson: With respect to the comments made by the minister, we have now had another minister who has stood in his place and said that this legislation will have no effect or very little effect on the economics of this province, whether through taxes or, I suppose, individuals. I suggest he look through some of the 54 pieces of legislation and draw his attention as to whether this bill will affect the economy of this province.

For example, with respect to employment benefits, the Education Act allows school boards to provide group and life insurance to employees and their spouses, and of course the definition of "spouse" will be expanded. It may have a nominal effect, I'll grant you that, but when you add up all these things, it may have a substantial effect. I'm waiting for the cabinet to come forward with some stats that indicate to us the actual economic effect on all of us, whether through taxes or individually.

In the Insurance Act, a spouse is included as a person insured under an automobile insurance contract and entitled to statutory benefits. Spouses have an insurable interest in the life and wellbeing of their spouses. That's what the law is now, and of course the definition of "spouse" is going to be expanded. To me, common sense tells me that means that premiums are going to increase if that's what the definition is going to include.

The whole issue of the Municipal Act permits municipal councils to pass bylaws regarding the provision of accident and hospitalization insurance for employees, and the provision of gratuities to firefighters and their surviving spouses. Again that is going to expand the cost to the property taxpayer.

You add that with respect to the Workers' Compensation Act, which provides compensation to the surviving spouses of workers who die from work injuries.

Again, if you expand the definition of "spouse," all these acts collectively will have an effect on the economy and the taxation of this province. I suggest you look at that before you pass this bill.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Peterborough-Hastings has two minutes to respond.

Hon Mr Buchanan: First of all, in response to the member for Dufferin-Peel talking about his hypothetical board of education employee who may be in a same-sex relationship, and he wants to know what this is going to cost in terms of extending benefits, what happens if that same person gets married into a heterosexual relationship? They will extend family benefits automatically. If he would explain to me what the difference should be between that and a same-sex relationship, I would be willing to give him a little more time and listen to his point, but I don't think he can make that distinction.

A couple of other things: The member for Eglinton I think quite rightly points out that this is a children's issue. I'm told there are 200,000 children in this province currently living in these kinds of relationships, in same-sex relationships, who are not necessarily protected if something should happen to their biological parent. Clearly, in most cases they're in loving homes with loving parents.

The other point I would make about children, as I listened to the member for Eglinton, is that children's aid societies in this province go around quite often and take children away from parents, and quite often it's heterosexual parents who are abusing those children. Let's not make this a black and white issue about heterosexual versus homosexual relationships. For goodness' sake, let's open our eyes and be honest about what we're talking about.

Another thing: I noticed in my research a national Gallup poll that the member from across the way would be interested in. It showed that of people under 40, 40% of those who were polled believe -- get this, Madam Speaker -- that same-sex marriages are okay. That's not what this bill is about, but they believe that would be okay.

Those members across the way who think that by voting against this issue the issue will go away have got their heads clearly buried in the sand. This issue will not go away if they vote against it.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Poole: Normally at this time I would rise and say, "I am pleased to enter into this debate." Today it is more appropriate to say, "I am compelled to enter into this debate."

The debate of Bill 167 has been emotional, passionate and has gone to the very heart of what people believe in. The debate has often been bitter, acrimonious and divisive. It has divided churches, generations, urban and rural constituencies and political parties. It has been extremely polarized, with those on one hand believing it to be an issue of human rights and those on the other side believing it is an attack on traditional values.

It comes down to one fundamental question: Are we ready to accept changes which will allow homosexuals to be fully included in every facet of our society? It has become painfully obvious that there is no consensus on this issue. I believe it is a matter of human rights, of treating all people fairly and equally. It is not a matter of special rights; it is a matter of the same rights for every citizen of this province.

First, let's take a look at exactly what this legislation does do. It allows same-sex couples to have the same employment, property, inheritance and support rights, benefits and obligations as are currently enjoyed by common-law couples. It allows same-sex couples the same right to apply to adopt as common-law couples already have and as individual gays and lesbians already have under existing law.

There are three areas of contention I wish to address today: whether Bill 167 constitutes a threat to the traditional family, what changes would be made to the institution of marriage through the redefinition of "spouse," and finally, adoption.

When looking at whether this legislation is an attack on the stability of the traditional family, I speak with some degree of personal experience. I grew up in a small town in northern Ontario called Matheson, and the member for Cochrane South is very well aware of my small town called Matheson. Our traditional family consisted of a mom and a dad and a son and three daughters. We didn't have much money, but what we did have was a strong sense of family. My brother and sisters and I grew up secure in the fact that our family would always provide unconditional love, mutual support and a total commitment to one another.

We regularly attended church, learned to respect other people's views and opinions, and believed in the ethic that hard work would lead to success and that education was the key to opportunity. We didn't always agree with one another's opinions, but we always believed people had the right to express different opinions and be treated with respect.

Today I am fortunate to be part of the same type of traditional family that I grew up with. My husband and I have been married happily for 20 years and we have two wonderful children, Scott, who is 18, and Kathleen, who is 16. Our children have had different life experiences than I had when I grew up, but the most important principles remain the same: Our family is a source of unconditional love, mutual support and total commitment to one another.

I ask this question in the House today: Why should anyone be denied the right to call themselves a family simply because their sexual orientation is different? Should we not be encouraging their right to unconditional love, mutual support and commitment to one another, not telling them that there is no room for them at the inn, that they have no right to be a family because they are different? I find it deeply ironic that because gays and lesbians want to share our values, they have been accused of destroying our values.

The second contentious point in Bill 167 which I will address is the impact on the institution of marriage. I will deal with this aspect briefly, clearly and emphatically. Bill 167 does not redefine or impact on the institution of marriage. All the special rights and responsibilities attached to marriage are preserved. Marriage is still a distinct category in this bill. Only the federal government can change marriage laws.

The controversy rages over the redefinition of the word "spouse." I find this particularly ironic, given the fact that 10 years ago "spouse" wasn't even a word that was commonly used by people and yet today there is much emotion attached to it.

The final issue is one I believe is the most contentious, that of adoption. Let us be perfectly clear here: Nobody under current legislation or under Bill 167 has the right to adopt. People have a right to apply to adopt. This is a very important distinction.

Mr Speaker -- Madam Speaker; I apologize again. I wrote this speech at 3 o'clock in the morning and I thought there would be a Mr Speaker there, I must say. Unfortunately, at the time it was handwritten because my son was up doing an all-nighter and said that he had the 3-to-6 shift.

Madam Speaker, I will say up front that I could not support any legislation which I believed would harm children or leave children unprotected. To me, this always has to be the paramount duty of this Legislature, the protection of our children. Yet, as I mentioned in my response to the remarks from the member for Hastings-Peterborough, another irony in this debate is that both sides on the adoption issue firmly believe they are protecting children by their stand.

On the one hand, people believe that if same-sex couples are allowed to adopt, they will teach children values that are harmful. On the other side, those who believe same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt believe that protection and security are simply being extended to children who are already in existing situations.

There are a number of important considerations I would ask you to think about when it comes to adoption by same-sex couples.

First of all, if you look in the Child and Family Services Act and refer to section 136 of part VII, you will see that it provides under existing legislation that the paramount consideration in any adoption is always -- always -- the best interests of the child. It also outlines very specifically what factors must be considered when determining the best interests of the child.

Secondly, for every adoption in Ontario, whether by a related party or not, whether by a heterosexual couple or not, there is a requirement for a home study to be conducted by a qualified social worker. The home study is extensive and a major factor in determining whether the placement is in the best interests of the child.

Thirdly, under existing legislation in Ontario, gays and lesbians already have the right to apply to adopt as individuals. So an individual gay or lesbian can adopt, but they can't adopt as couples. Does this discrepancy make any sense? I say no.

Finally, in the vast majority of instances we're talking about adoption of a natural child by one of the partners in a same-sex relationship. We are talking about an existing situation where right now the child is not protected if the natural parent dies.

There are a number of misconceptions which add to people's discomfort on the adoption issue: the idea, for instance -- and this has not been said in this House but certainly there are people out there who believe this -- that all paedophiles are homosexuals and that all homosexuals are paedophiles. That has no basis in fact. The evidence, to the contrary, is there is no higher incidence of paedophilia in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community. In fact, recent evidence shows that there is even less incidence of paedophilia in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community.

Secondly, there appears to be a concern that because they have a different sexual orientation, gays and lesbians cannot be kind, loving parents and role models. I categorically reject the validity of this assumption. The reason same-sex couples want to adopt is because they want to nurture. They want to provide a loving home for their partner's child. They want protection for that child in the event of their partner's death. They want to be part of a family.

Mr Speaker -- Madam Speaker. I really apologize. I'm not used to reading from my prepared text.

Madam Speaker, when legislation goes to the heart of people's fundamental beliefs, it is not so surprising that they react with anger and, in some instances, threats. I have been told emphatically and a number of times that I will not be re-elected because of my stand on this issue. I do not believe this to be true. North Toronto is a community that is well known for its tolerance and acceptance of those who come from different cultures, different backgrounds and different life experiences. While it is true that many of my constituents may not see this as a human rights issue as I do, I have also had letters and phone calls of support from many others who do. If in the final analysis I am wrong, and if the voters of Eglinton feel my stand on this issue supersedes my work for them over the last seven years, well, I can live with that too because that is what is called democracy and the voters of my riding will have that choice to make.

1740

I've been told that this is not my battle, not my cause. In answer to why I consider this to be my battle, even though I am not a gay or lesbian, I would like to share the words of Pastor Niemöller in Nazi Germany. I apologize if the quote isn't exact, but I'm recounting it from memory. Pastor Niemöller said:

"First they came to take away the communists, and I did nothing, because I was not a communist. Then they came to take away the gypsies, and I did nothing, because I was not a gypsy. Then they came to take away the homosexuals, and I did nothing, because I was not a homosexual. Then they came to take away the Jews, and I did nothing, because I was not a Jew. When they came to take me away, there was no one left to do anything."

I share Pastor Niemöller's words with you not to compare, and I emphasize not to compare, those who oppose Bill 167 to those who persecuted Jews and gays in Nazi Germany, but to tell you why I believe that each one of us in this Legislature must stand up for human rights, even for those who are different from us, perhaps especially for those who are different from us.

I refuse to call those who oppose this legislation intolerant, except for those who are clearly homophobic and believe homosexuals have no right to exist or participate in our society. This is not an issue to be seen only as tolerance versus intolerance, nor an issue of right versus wrong. It is an issue of acceptance. Some people are simply more ready than others to accept the full place and role of homosexuals in our society.

I compare it to the changing acceptance of the role and place of women. At the turn of the century the Election Act of the Dominion of Canada stated, "No woman, idiot, lunatic, or criminal shall vote." Yet today it is accepted, even by most of my colleagues, that women can not only vote but are an intrinsic part in the leadership of our society -- and I wasn't referring to you.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You better not have been.

Laughter.

Ms Poole: It is good to be able to laugh. I haven't heard a lot of laughter on this issue over the past weeks.

There are some who believe that homosexuals have a place in our society as long as they are willing to stay out of sight on the dark fringes. As a Liberal, I say, let us welcome them to share our family values and participate with us fully in our lives. Let us ensure they have the same rights, the same responsibilities, the same protections, as all people in Ontario. Let us welcome them into the sunshine. On Bill 167 we have the opportunity to do just that.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Eglinton for her participation. Now we have time for questions or comments to the member.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I would like to commend the member from, I would say, Matheson or the member for Eglinton for her comments in regard to this issue.

I think Ms Poole understands probably as well as I do the kind of sentiment that this issue sometimes raises in ridings such as mine up in northern Ontario. But the one thing that I've learned through this whole process, because it's been a learning process, is that really what this is all about is exactly what the member talked about: It's a question of human rights. If we look at our history, I think we can reflect back and we can find all kinds of examples where people were being denied basic human rights in the name of somebody, in sort of the same vein as we're seeing in this particular debate. I'm not going to list them; I think everybody knows those examples.

The other thing I would like to talk about, because it is an issue that has been raised in the riding of Cochrane South, around the Matheson-Iroquois Falls-Timmins area, is the whole question of adoption. One of the comments that people raise with me, and I imagine they raise it with most members here, is that somehow, if gay and lesbian couples have the right to adoption, bad things will happen.

I would say, as the member said, that first of all nobody has the right to adoption; everybody has the right to apply. But the second notion, and one thing I've found, being a member over the last four years, is that I've had a number of people come into my constituency office for all kinds of different reasons, and I've had unfortunately -- and I say "unfortunately" in the deepest sense -- cases where young women and young boys have come to my office with problems where they have been sexually assaulted or molested. In all cases, I would say, they were not being molested by gay people; they were being molested by heterosexuals.

We need to put that into context. Somehow people have this idea that if people who are gay happen to raise a child, they have some other motive. We need to be very careful. I don't think we should be throwing stones from our own court, because I don't think the record has been exactly the strongest when it comes to that.

I'd like to thank the member for her comments and I appreciate her time in this debate.

Mr Mahoney: I also want to congratulate the member for one of the most balanced speeches I've heard on this particular issue. It may not come as a surprise that I'm opposed to the bill, but I want to say that I thought the examples used by the member were really quite excellent. I didn't hear the kinds of accusations that I've heard from other members in this place, accusations and references to South Africa, suggestions that if you're opposed to this bill, you're opposed to human rights and you're some kind of a bad person.

I heard a very thoughtful explanation from a member who took the time to go home and talk to her family, a traditional family as I know a traditional family, to talk to her husband and her kids. I know them as well on a personal basis and I can imagine it was quite an interesting conversation.

I can also imagine that the member, and I respect her courage, would have talked to people in her riding and on her executive who might not agree with exactly the position she has taken on this matter. In my 16 years in public life, I have found myself in a position from time to time where I simply had to take a position that was contrary to everybody around me, and that's extremely difficult. I respect the courage and the tenacity that the member for Eglinton shows in doing that.

I particularly want to thank her for raising the level of the debate well above accusations of hatred or bigotry or those kinds of feelings, because I don't think to be against this bill equates with any of those things. I'll certainly be putting my reasons for voting against it on the record when the opportunity affords during this debate, but I did want to take the time to congratulate her on what I thought was really quite a marvellous speech.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I just want to stand in my place for a few moments. I heard the member for Eglinton talking about the child. One thing which as an MPP I haven't heard is that nobody has come to my constituency office in going on four years and said, "The adoption process is flawed so bad that children's protection isn't in place."

Do you know what concerns me as we go through this debate? There's a lot of rhetoric in this and sometimes it gets quite hurtful and mean, but I think what shouldn't be overlooked is the right of a child to have somebody who is going to care, who is going to love, who is going to nurture them, who is going to spend the time with them. It doesn't matter whether that child is being brought up by a single person or by a family, but that they're cared for. Quite often, the children who are overlooked in the adoption process are the ones who have some challenges, the ones who may have some disabilities. Quite often families just overlook them and that's really unfortunate.

I think the balance that the member for Eglinton has put in here is that what we want to see is some protection for people. We want to see that the children are going to be looked at, and the rights of the children, so that they're brought up in a relationship of two people who care for them, two people who are going to make sure that they're given the best of advice -- if it takes two people who are of the same sex, if they can do that -- so that somebody isn't saying, "Your parents, the people who are raising you, don't fit the mould of parents and it's not good enough." It's not a matter of us judging it but a matter of us providing protection for children and offering that care and love and protection.

1750

The Acting Speaker: We have time for one more question or comment to the member. The member for Middlesex. Oh, she would like to defer to the member for Riverside.

Hon Ms Churley: Riverdale, my dear Madam Speaker. I get quite defensive about that.

I want to congratulate as well the member for Eglinton for her comments today. If they were written at 3 in the morning, I congratulate her even further. I think she put into perspective some of the issues that kind of bogey people around here: the adoption issue and also, for me, the issue around the focus on people's sexuality as opposed to the kinds of things that the member raised, the nurturing and the other aspects to a relationship, other than the sexuality.

I don't mean to just speak for myself here, and I may be going out on a limb, but for people in long-term relationships, let's face it, the sexuality part often takes -- and I'm not speaking for myself here -- second or third or fourth place to other things that are going on in the relationship over time. It's the friendship and it's the mutual support, be that financial or emotional -- physical, yes, but the nurturing and financial support that people give each other in loving relationships.

It's a pretty cruel world out there. We as politicians in our ridings frequently see those people out there who have no support, who are alienated and isolated, have no family members; for whatever reasons, are on their own. I think even worse than poverty, in some cases, that's what breaks the spirit most, and those are often the people who are most dependent on the system. You talk about expense to the system to give same-sex spousal benefits. The expense to the system comes from those people, often, who don't have nurturing and love and support in their lives.

To me, it doesn't matter what the sexual orientation is. It's the love and support we give each other as family members.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Now the member for Eglinton has two minutes to respond.

Ms Poole: First, I would like to thank the members for Cochrane South, Durham-York, Riverdale and Mississauga West for their very good comments. I would say to the member for Cochrane South that I still think I'm the member from Matheson. You can take the girl out of the small town but I'm not sure that you can ever take the small town out of the girl.

Mr Bisson: You're welcome back any time.

Ms Poole: Thank you.

I would say to the member for Mississauga West, who commended me for my courage and tenacity, that this was not surprising, when he termed me the "pit bull" in our caucus for my stand on market value. So he too is being consistent.

But seriously, I would like to say that the one thing that gives me great hope through this debate, whether this legislation passes or not, and I hope it does pass, is the attitude of our young people. I mentioned earlier that it was to a certain extent a generational gap. When I talk to my teenagers and I talk to their friends and I talk to my executive assistants, who are in their 20s and 30s, they have a very different attitude about this.

They say: "Of course. What is the big deal? They should have rights. They're people. They're human beings. They have emotions. They have a wish to be a family. Why shouldn't they be able to do this?" They look at things without the baggage that many of the others of us have learned to carry along the way. That, to me, is the great hope that we have.

I would just say to all members of this Legislature that this is not a matter of religion and morality, because we all have letters and petitions from people who are members of the church and from ministers. This is a matter of human rights, and I do hope that members of this Legislature will support Bill 167 and bring human rights to all members of society.

The Acting Speaker: We have a few minutes left for further debate. I recognize the member for London South.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I believe there are only a few minutes left on the clock, but I'm happy to launch into my own speech in support of this legislation.

As you well know, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the cornerstone of our justice system and society in Canada. As the Constitution does in any country, it upholds principles of democracy, of fairness, of equality. In our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have a section 15 that speaks to the principle that people who are similarly situated should be treated equally. They are equal before and under the law. There are occasionally exceptions made to that principle, under section 1, where a limit can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms became the law of Canada in 1982, provincial governments were given three years to bring their legislation into line with the equality rights provisions of section 15 of the charter. In fact, this government, like many others, took advantage of those three years to tune up the provincial laws to ensure that they met the test under section 15 of the charter. Hence, an omnibus bill was introduced and passed in 1986 to deal with equality rights and to bring real meaning in provincial legislation to equality rights.

While a small step was taken forward at that time to ensure that sexual orientation was included in the Human Rights Code as a ground for discrimination, in fact a much bigger step was not taken to ensure that the rights of same-sex spousal couples were brought into line with the dictates of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So I'm quite pleased to see Bill 167 before this House, because I believe firmly that this bill finally addresses that void that has existed since the omnibus legislation of 1986. It finally brings a much-needed measure of social justice and equity to same-sex couples that the Legislature of the day in 1986 failed to address, and it does it, I believe, in a very fiscally responsible manner.

In fact, not only does this legislation confer certain rights and benefits on same-sex spouses that are currently enjoyed by opposite-sex common-law couples, it also confers upon the same-sex spousal couples obligations and responsibilities that are consistent with those obligations and responsibilities that are visited on common-law couples under other legislation, including the Family Law Act.

So while the legislation certainly affirms, as other speakers have indicated in the House, the fundamental human rights to which all of us, including gay and lesbian individuals, are entitled, at the same time it ensures that appropriate measures are taken to implement those rights in a very responsible way.

I note, Madam Speaker, that it's now approximately 6 of the clock, and perhaps I could defer my other comments to the continuation of this debate. I would move adjournment of this debate.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member. Because it is 6 o'clock, we will adjourn this House until tomorrow at 1:30.

The House adjourned at 1759.

6 juin 1994