Journal des débats 1994-juin-09 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That in the opinion of this House, since Canada is a signatory to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, now in force, which recognizes the catastrophic environmental, economic and social consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and calls for decisive international action to curb these emissions; and

Since the federal Liberal government has committed to a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over 1988 levels by 2005, as urged by the Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere and endorsed by the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy; and

Since the federal government is working to develop a national action plan on climate change, together with the provinces and territories, that will reverse the continuing trend towards higher emissions and achieve the 20% target; and

Since the recent Canadian Options for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, or COGGER, report for the Royal Society of Canada concludes that it is both technically feasible and economically beneficial to implement a 20% reduction in emission levels;

Therefore this assembly supports the federal government in its commitment to a 20% reduction in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions over 1988 levels by 2005, and further supports leadership on the part of Ontario in helping to develop and implement a national action plan to achieve this environmentally imperative goal.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have introduced this resolution on climate change because of the extreme importance and urgency of the issue. In spite of all the talk about the issue and the signing in June 1992 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by Canada and 166 other countries, concentrations of greenhouse gas are still rising.

By the time our constituents are affected by climate change, it will be too late to take effective action. Some change is already inevitable. Sea levels will rise, drowning many now-inhabited regions. Prince Edward Island and other coastal areas of Canada may be affected. There will be refugees. Higher temperatures and changed climate patterns will put animals and plants, and particularly trees, in an inappropriate habitat. There could be massive die-offs. Tropical diseases may spread to new regions.

Nobody knows exactly what will happen, but the costs of adjustment, both financially and in human terms, will be large. Environmental problems can lead to social disintegration. There are times when governments must give a lead. This is such a time.

Many studies have been done on how greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced in Canada and in Ontario. A 1991 study for the Ontario Ministry of Energy concluded that a 20% reduction from 1988 greenhouse gas emission levels by the year 2005 is feasible in Ontario.

In September 1993, we had the final report of the COGGER panel to the Royal Society of Canada. The panel addressed two sets of questions: Firstly, how much potential for carbon dioxide reduction through energy efficiency and fuel switching is worth doing anyway over the next several decades for economic reasons and how much of this potential is achievable, assuming different approaches and strategies; and secondly, what would be required to achieve much more aggressive energy efficiency and fuel-switching targets if these are necessary for climate stabilization. I shall address only the first set of questions, as this is where immediate action is needed.

The worth-doing-anyway changes are so because they reduce costs and improve efficiency. We're not asking business, industry and individuals to disadvantage themselves in any way. We're asking them to get more cost-effective, more up to date and efficient, more competitive, something they should be doing anyhow for strictly economic reasons. The article "Firms Find Gold in Green" in the Globe and Mail for June 7 makes this point quite strongly, and I cannot overemphasize this point. The environmentally friendly way is the way of the future, the way that will pay and also provide jobs. This improved job creation has been studied and proven.

Under the "What's Worth Doing Anyway?" heading, the COGGER report looks at the economic potential for reduction of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. There are two general strategies available. One is improvements in the efficiency of energy conversion and end use: better furnaces, better lightbulbs and so on. The other is switching to fuels with lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of useful energy produced, notably from oil and coal to natural gas.

The panel concludes that improved efficiency rather than fuel switching is the key to stabilizing energy-related carbon dioxide emissions over the next two decades and that an absolute reduction of emissions by 20% by the year 2010 can be achieved in a cost-effective way if both strategies are pursued to the full.

However, the report emphasizes that these changes will not come about by themselves and suggests that the barriers to greenhouse gas emission reduction are not economic but political:

"Few provincial or federal government agencies or energy industries in Canada either have in place, or intend to implement, substantial energy efficiency policies that go beyond provision of information to consumers. Many organizations have no plans for, or expectations of, significantly increased levels of energy efficiency and fuel switching. And no organization that responded to the COGGER survey projected a stronger CO₂ target than emission stabilization. Many have no emission targets, and even when a stabilization goal exists, it is not clear that the policies required to achieve even that goal are in place."

1010

The authors say that more effective government policy is required, including real targets and timetables for emission reductions, carbon taxes, the elimination of policies that distort energy prices, regulations to set minimum efficiency standards for energy-using equipment and buildings, building retrofit programs, financial incentives for energy-efficient programs and more support for research and development in the area of energy-efficient products and procedures.

The federal government is committed to a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from 1988 levels by 2005, both in its red policy book and in the words of federal Environment Minister Sheila Copps. Bob Rae has also expressed support for this objective but is concerned that all implications be fully understood before a firm timetable is adopted.

Ontario has been cautious in its commitments, having fully endorsed only a national goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000, but Ontario is building up a good record of action actually taken. The Ontario government is planning further action, but cannot achieve optimal results without active cooperation with the federal government on a national plan.

It's also necessary to involve the public through incentives as well as through education. It's easy in times like this for overriding issues like joblessness to overshadow in people's minds environmental issues which, if not attended to, will lead to drastic problems down the road. And then the public will ask politicians why they didn't take action to prevent these problems from becoming unmanageable.

If we want to know whether these questions do figure in people's minds, we need only look at a report prepared for the Children and Youth Project of the Premier's Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice in February 1993 to find that the questions are present where they should concern us most, in the minds of children. Some children mentioned the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems as reasons why they and their children could not look forward to a good life. Our kids know the environment matters, even though they don't call us about it.

It's a strange thing, but nuclear power stations pay off the debts that are incurred in building them over 40 years, which is probably their lifetime, whereas equipment for improving energy efficiency seems to be expected to give a payback in one or two years, showing just how environmentally beneficial it actually is.

Things are happening, but not enough. Greenhouse gas emissions are still increasing.

I urge all members to support this resolution. If Ontario provides leadership in developing and implementing a national action plan while expanding its own activities, and Ottawa keeps its promises, I shall have achieved my objective in bringing forward this resolution.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I am very pleased to join in this debate. Let me say at the outset that I am in support of the resolution put forward by the member for Peterborough. It behooves us to recognize that the resolution asks for the support of this assembly in supporting the federal government "in its commitment to a 20% reduction in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions over 1988 levels by the year 2005, and further supports leadership on the part of Ontario in helping to develop and implement the national action plan to achieve this environmentally imperative goal."

This type of resolution is one which I certainly can support. In fact, I believe it is incumbent on all members of this Legislature to lend support for environmental initiatives. It should not matter what the level of government is, because we know that our air, our water and the way we use our land indeed draws no distinctions between levels of government or political parties. I believe we must continue to stand up and collectively work for the preservation, the protection, the enhancement and the betterment of our environment. It is important to us; it is important to our children and to our children's children.

I believe we must have as our overriding motivation and our goal the best interests of the people of Ontario. We must, as legislators in this province, continue to be vigilant in supporting worthy initiatives and must also be ready to criticize actions we do not feel are in the best interests of the environment. We must look to all levels of government, and for that there is no difficulty for me in supporting this particular resolution.

It is clear that we are looking for leadership from the federal government in supporting that. We are looking for leadership from the provincial government, and because this resolution deals with this, I believe it is also important for us to take a look at what is within our jurisdiction and responsibility in this province and whether we are meeting the goals, meeting our own targets.

We can look, for instance, to the dry-cleaning regulations that have been announced by the province. We can look to the issue of smog; we can look to the issue of the ozone layer; we can look to the issue of landfill and waste management. We must be able to examine ourselves and to analyse our efforts in these areas that also affect the environment.

I have before me, in the area of the dry-cleaning regulations, a news release by Pollution Probe. Pollution Probe has indicated that they find the dry-cleaning regulation inadequate. The environmental group Pollution Probe indicated in a news release of February 28 of this year that Ontario's draft dry-cleaning regulation misses the mark in terms of its goal of reducing carcinogens that contribute to ground-level ozone formation.

Pollution Probe has indicated clearly in a letter of February 28 to the Minister of Environment and Energy that they "reviewed the regulation and conclude that it is inadequate for achieving significant reduction in VOC emissions from the dry-cleaning industry. It puts forth no goals and no time lines. A training program alone offers no guarantee that VOC reductions will be achieved."

I think it is incumbent upon us as members in this Legislature, as we lend support to this resolution and our support to the leadership aspects in the federal government, that we also take a look at what is or is not being done in the provincial area.

In the area of smog, it is important to recognize that Pollution Probe, with the Lung Association, has indicated that Ontario is falling behind other provincial and US jurisdictions in the fight against summer smog. This was a report issued just at the beginning of this month, June 1, 1994.

It was stated by Janine Ferretti, the executive director of Pollution Probe, that "if we're going to clean the air in Ontario, we have to clean up the car."

She goes on to say: "But Ontario isn't leading the way -- it isn't even matching the efforts being made elsewhere; we've got the country's worst smog problem -- and we deserve the best smog-fighting program. We're not getting it."

Pollution Probe, again with the Lung Association, states that the one-year voluntary pilot project announced by the government is "little more than a test of emission-testing equipment. It's a baby step in the right direction, but will have little effect on smog."

So we have from other sources, people who are involved in this area, a real condemnation of the actions and reactions by the government in this area.

1020

In the area of ozone, we know that Friends of the Earth have just released a report which gives Ontario a dishonourable mention as the country's largest producer of ozone-depleting substances. For that, this government should feel, rightly, concerned.

They have not done anything in the area of ozone. They have not done anything in the area of smog. They have not done anything in a variety of other areas. And as we found out just last week, the provincial government has reduced the emergency response times in the event there is a toxic spill in this province. If there is a toxic spill which takes place after 10 pm on weekdays or any time on the weekend, there will not be an immediate response to that spill. I believe that is something for which the provincial government should be criticized.

The last point I wish to make deals with the way in which the provincial government has dealt with the waste management issue. I think we all recognize the intense criticism that the government has received over its actions in Bill 143: the creation of the Interim Waste Authority, the incredible waste of dollars that that authority is expending each and every day, and how people in the communities in the greater Toronto area have been excluded in no small measure from participating in how they feel waste can be disposed of in the best environmental manner possible. That criticism continues day in and day out to this government.

The other area where the government has been roundly criticized, once more in the waste management area, and this is coincidental, happens to be in the Peterborough area. I think the member who has put forward this resolution recognizes that because of her government's policies, there are now, I believe, four waste disposal sites. All have been recognized and situated on usable and in-use farm land: People have been working that area as farm land. They are extremely critical that the current government puts in place a waste management policy which will in effect take farm land out of the agricultural sector. They believe the government is wrong, wrong and wrong in the way in which it is addressing this particular issue. It is an issue that they address in a way that can be described in one word, and that is "chaotic."

So as I speak in support of the resolution, because I believe all members should lend support to whatever level of government there be -- it doesn't matter what the political party happens to be; we should be ready, willing and able to support initiatives that are in the best interests of the environment, that are good for our water, good for our land, good for our air, good for our children. We must continue to stand up in support.

But there is a quid pro quo. That is that as we are ready to say yes, we must also be ready to say, "No, we do not agree with particular actions" or "No, we believe that a particular matter is being met with an inaction." It doesn't matter what level of government, or indeed political party, happens to represented; we must stand up and say that there is inaction.

This resolution is important because it gives us the opportunity to stand up -- certainly I will be supporting the resolution -- and say, and we should all be standing up and saying, "Where has the provincial government been in terms of the protection of the ozone layer, in terms of smog, in terms of an effective waste management policy?"

There is criticism by groups such as Friends of the Earth, Pollution Probe, the Lung Association. We will do well as legislators to listen to those very important groups on a matter and issue which will affect all of us, will affect our children and our children's children. We have a duty and a responsibility.

I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to stand in support of the resolution, but also giving me the opportunity of indicating where I believe the provincial government has fallen short of its responsibility for the protection and the enhancement of the environment.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity this morning to make a few comments on the resolution from the member for Peterborough.

Part of the resolution reads,

"Since the federal Liberal government has committed to a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over 1988 levels by 2005, as urged by the Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere and endorsed by the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy; and

"Since the federal government is working to develop a national action plan on climate change, together with the provinces and territories, that will reverse the continuing trend towards higher emissions and achieve the 20% target; and

"Since the recent Canadian Options of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction...report for the Royal Society of Canada concludes that it is both technically feasible and economically beneficial to implement a 20% reduction in emission levels;

"Therefore this assembly supports the federal government in its commitment to a 20% reduction in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions over 1988 levels by 2005, and further supports leadership on the part of Ontario in helping to develop and implement a national action plan to achieve this environmentally imperative goal."

I agree with the aim and the parts of this resolution which certainly want to reduce by 20% -- this action plan -- the greenhouse gas emissions. It's important for the people of Ontario to know that the member from the governing party is relying on the federal government to protect our environment because of the attitude of the provincial government since it was first elected in 1990.

In August 1990, Bob Rae unveiled his famous Agenda for People by saying:

"We have to make tough choices on the environment and make the polluters pay to clean up their mess. For too long the environment has suffered while the Liberals refused to get tough on polluters. The commitments we make today cover a broad range of the most pressing environmental issues in Ontario today and will end the free ride that corporate polluters have been getting from a friendly, toothless Liberal government."

That's what Bob Rae said August 19, 1990. Under the "Clean Air" portion of the Agenda for People, Bob Rae said he would extend the acid rain program because the Liberals' Countdown Acid Rain program didn't go far enough. He said it didn't control acid gas emissions from the Big Four -- Ontario Hydro, Inco, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel -- beyond emission targets set for 1994. He said it did nothing to control all the other sources of acid gases. He said, "We need to plan for post-1994, including further reductions for the Big Four and new regulations for the other sources."

Bob Rae went on to suggest that "the general industrial air pollution law should be amended to mandate zero discharge of toxic chemicals into the air by the year 2000." He noted that Liberal election promises had "no zero goal at all."

Sadly, Bob Rae and his merry band of socialists have followed up on none of those clean air promises from the Agenda for People. Instead, they've been dumping on the people of Ontario.

I'm referring to the fact that under Liberal and NDP governments, the people of Ontario have had a series of conflicting policies with regard to landfill sites. It has always been my personal opinion that we do not require any new landfill sites. In fact, I believe landfill sites have gone the way of the dinosaur and it's now incumbent upon all levels of government, industry and the public to devise new and environmentally sound methods for handling waste management in Ontario.

Having said this, perhaps a little background would be in order to clear up some of the matters that have concerned me in the recent past. At one time, the provincial government encouraged municipalities to band together and establish local organizations to review waste management in their jurisdictions and urged them to come up with creative solutions to waste management problems.

1030

In 1989, the Liberal government passed An Act to amend the Municipal Act, which gave municipalities power over waste management and directed them to establish waste management plans. The premise behind this legislation was sound in theory, because municipalities are best equipped to know their own waste management requirements, problems and solutions.

Two years later, the NDP government brought in Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act. Bill 143 was precedent-setting because it gives the Ministry of Environment and Energy power to unilaterally dictate waste management procedures which have traditionally and legally been overseen by municipal governments. It expropriates the rights of municipalities to make their own waste management decisions, steamrolls years of legislation outlined in the Municipal Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act as they pertain to waste management systems, and limits waste disposal options and makes null and void all waste management agreements a municipality may have.

Now we have a member of the governing party suggesting that we must hang our hopes for environmental protection on clean air measures taken by the federal government. There's a completely unacceptable response from the government here if it seriously recognizes what's happening in Ontario. With regard to the emissions, I say that the new-found ethanol gasoline is certainly a step in the right direction. I think it should be an undertaking by this government to promote that further, to make sure that there is more green being used in our gases, therefore cutting down on the pollutants we put into the air.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I first of all want to commend the member for Peterborough, because it is my belief and it has been my experience that there really is no one else in our caucus who more consistently brings forward issues on the environment. I know in her discussions within caucus that this is an issue she brings forward on a regular basis, and so I know that for her it is a long-standing concern, and I personally admire her commitment to that cause.

Her resolution very much speaks to that long-standing concern, and it definitely shows that it is her belief, and it is also mine, that whatever each of us does, both large and small, really does have a palpable effect on the world around us.

I know that many in this House and in the galleries will have heard this phrase: "Think globally; act locally." "Locally" means not only our communities or our province, but it does mean in our homes, too. Reducing our energy consumption saves the environment. Such little things as changes to the Ontario Building Code, which has been revised both in 1990 and in 1993, have seen issues like changing the home insulation and thereby making sure that individual homes are using less in the way of heat.

I would like to point out that insulation requirements in the building code for new housing were updated in 1990 and full-height basement insulation standards were added in 1993, along with even higher energy efficiency standards for electrically heated homes. As a result, the average new gas-heated home built in 1995 will be 15% more efficient than one built in 1988.

Many of us probably don't think a simple thing like controlling a leaking tap has an effect, but water consumption -- and frequently it is the hot water tap that does leak -- will affect the energy that's required to heat that water, and controlling that kind of usage in the home, however small it may be individually, does have, across the province and across the continent, an effect. So there have been amendments to the plumbing code.

The plumbing code amendments will affect water flow in commercial and residential structures by establishing maximum flow rates for shower heads, toilets and faucets. Energy savings are a result of reduced demand for hot water. All of this, however small, has an effect on the kind of energy that needs to be produced to heat that water and obviously affects our air quality.

I wanted to also point out that the issue of transit is one that we have talked about locally. I know this is something that the member for Peterborough also holds very dear, and that relates to the use of transit. I think we all have to be very mindful of how we travel from point A to point B, the efficiency of our automobile, but also the availability of public transit.

This government has moved on this kind of an initiative to make sure that there is more rapid transit available. I'd like to point out that Ontario has announced detailed plans to substantially expand the public transit network over the next decade. Enhanced regional commuter service will be augmented by over 40 kilometres of new rapid transit lines in Toronto alone. I know there have been discussions within my own region, in the Niagara Peninsula, about increased rapid transit to Toronto.

I have some concerns about the Ministry of Transportation focusing on road expansion, but it does make recommendations with regard to GO buses and a range of other services that my constituents can make use of, basically thereby eliminating the use of the automobile and making sure that our energy use is minimized.

Along the line of the use of the automobile, we should make sure that our cars, as I said earlier, are efficient. Currently, there is a voluntary pilot program in place here in Metropolitan Toronto which allows for the inspection and maintenance of cars. These plans call for a full program to apply to the 3.4 million vehicles in the GTA fleet by the year 2000. An estimated 30% of the automobile fleet is in need of repair. That will reduce emissions.

Experience with programs in other jurisdictions shows that substantial fuel economy savings also result from repairing non-conforming vehicles. I want to point out to the member from one of the Mississauga ridings that we really and truly are acting, time and time again, on these issues. We are improving our air quality, dealing with these smog issues. I would counter his comments. We are acting.

I know there are other members of the government side, other members in this House, who wish to speak to this, so I want to thank the member for Peterborough again for the opportunity to raise these very valuable points.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The issue that's been raised by the member for Peterborough is certainly one that we should spend some time on. I congratulate her for raising it and certainly I do support that type of resolution and congratulate her for bringing it to the Legislature today.

There's no question that much of her resolution, if you read the resolution -- several members have read it -- talks about what the federal government should do, that we should be encouraging the federal government to do certain things. There's no question she's right; we should be doing that.

I guess the problem is that because of jurisdictional issues there has to be a partnership, there has to be cooperation with the provincial governments, not just in Ontario, but governments. There has to be a partnership with the United States and other jurisdictions that we need to look at, and perhaps we've been overlooking that. Perhaps the province of Ontario and the federal government and the jurisdictions, the state of New York and the various American jurisdictions as well as the federal jurisdiction in the United States, have been overlooking their obligations on the very serious issues that are being raised by this resolution.

When I say I support it, I do support it, but there is no question that the member for Peterborough has been a member of the cabinet of this government, has sat in that cabinet. With due respect to her, I have seen very little to improve the issues she is raising from the provincial perspective of this government. Quite frankly this resolution, being brought in the dying days of this government, is rather strange when she has had a wonderful opportunity as a minister, as a member of this government, to actually do something. Yes, there is no question that she may stand in her place and talk about some of the things that the current government has done with respect to refrigeration and other environmental matters, and she is correct.

1040

I remind her what her party did when it was seeking office in 1990 and put forward An Agenda for People. There was a paragraph in this document which dealt with this very subject. You raised it then and yet you've done nothing since as far as being a member of the cabinet or a member of the New Democratic government is concerned. I'm going to read that to the member for Peterborough.

The Agenda for People is quite clear as to the whole topic of clean air. In fact, clean air is a topic in it. It says: "Extend the acid rain program: The Liberals' Countdown Acid Rain program didn't go far enough. It doesn't control acid gas emissions from the 'Big Four' (Ontario Hydro, Inco, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel) beyond emission targets set for 1994. It does nothing to control all the other sources of acid gases. We need to plan for post-1994, including further reductions for the Big Four and new regulations for the other sources."

I have heard nothing from you, as a former minister of the crown, or this government on this topic. So I find it strange that you come to this place at this particular time and bring forward this resolution encouraging the federal government to do a number of very serious things -- and I repeat, I agree with you on those -- and yet your government, which has an obligation to do a number of things, has done absolutely nothing.

On the topic of the overhaul you suggested in your Agenda for People, the New Democratic Party says, "Overhaul the air pollution laws: The general industrial air pollution law should be amended to mandate zero discharge of toxic chemicals into the air by the year 2000. Liberal election promises have no zero goal at all."

Again, you've been talking about this for four years. You've been talking about this since 1990 and yet your government has done next to nothing. You in government have an obligation on this very important issue that you bring to this House, and you've done nothing. Your government has put forward the issue of voluntary vehicle emission inspections and maintenance in this province, whereas other jurisdictions, particularly British Columbia, as I understand it, have mandatory vehicle emission inspections.

I quite frankly think that clean air doesn't seem to be on your government's agenda. I encourage you in suggesting that the federal government get its act together, but I suggest that you and your government get your act together, because the whole topic of clean air is important to us. The province has set no time lines itself; it has set no time lines on the very issue you're speaking of. You're saying to the federal government, "You set time lines," but you're setting none.

I encourage you, I plead with you to do the very thing yourselves that you're asking the federal government to do. You have set no targets and no plan for controlling the yellow haze that blankets our cities. You have a responsibility. Yes, the federal government does and the American jurisdictions do, but you do, and quite frankly we have seen no targets, no time lines, no plan.

On one of the most obvious solutions, the emission inspection program for cars, really very little has been spent on that. To date, to my knowledge, your government has made that voluntary.

I have only a few minutes left, and I'd like to raise another issue with respect to air emissions. I raised this before with your Minister of Environment and Energy, Mr Wildman, in a question to this House several days ago. It has to do with your whole policy of waste management. Your government has simply said: "Build gigantic landfill sites. Build gigantic dumps in the GTA, 400 acres, 500 acres on top of water aquifers, on top of prime farm land." You won't look at other options.

One of the things that you won't consider, won't allow this province to even consider, is the expansion of energy-from-waste facilities, even though they've been so successful in other jurisdictions, even though they've been successful in Europe, Japan and the United States.

I read to your minister a report that came forward in a magazine article. I hope he has looked at it and changed his policy. In the time remaining, I'd simply like to read again the statistics that show that the amount of emissions that are coming from landfill sites, as opposed to energy-from-waste facilities, are gigantulous. Yet you continue with your policy of saying. "Do not even consider, do not look at, the option. Do not allow the municipalities to look at the option of incineration."

This article of Professor Kay H. Jones, called Comparing Air Emissions from Landfills and WTE Plants, comes forward in the April 1994 edition of Solid Waste Technologies. Member, I encourage you to read this article. For example: "In the past, health risk concerns about landfilling have centred on the potential for groundwater contamination...liners and leachate management have lessened the potential problems, but haven't resolved them entirely. Air emissions from landfills also can negatively affect health."

Yet your government does not even have a process for monitoring the emissions that come from landfill sites. You don't even monitor them. You have no idea of the amount of emissions that are coming from landfill sites. You can't even intelligently discuss this topic, yet you go away with your blinders on and have simply ruled out that whole issue.

I encourage members of this House to read this article which I've referred to in this House in the past and I thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this debate.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I too am pleased to rise in support of the resolution put forward by the member for Peterborough. It's quite clear, according to an issue of the Global Warming Report, which I have, that:

"Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is the dominant, human-induced contributor to the greenhouse effect. Improved energy efficiency, greater use of renewable energy, and development of new energy technologies will all be needed to reduce emissions of CO₂.

"As an example, energy use and CO₂ emissions in Ontario have dropped more than 8%" between 1989 and 1992, so the suggestion made by the opposition critics that we're doing nothing to monitor carbon dioxide emissions and nothing to reduce them is hogwash, to put it mildly. We are doing a lot as a province. We're playing a key role in this country to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

There are progressive measures that have been taken and should be taken in the future to change patterns of energy use and consumption. The key things are, of course, energy efficiency, switching of fuels where appropriate, and improving our technology to reduce CO₂ emissions.

I think too that there is significant economic potential for increased energy efficiency and fuel switching. I note with some interest, in an article of the journal of the chartered accountants entitled "Who Pays? Now that Business Wants to Go Green, It's a Question of Finding the Money," that "Daniel Rubenstein, a principal...in the office of the Auditor General in Ottawa and one of Canada's foremost environmental accountants, says...'The debate is moving. You don't have to argue pollution's dangers with the leaders of industry any more.... Most of them want to go to zero impact. For them, the next logical questions are, "What do we have to fix to get there?" and "How do we pay for it?"'"

1050

I take issue with some of the comments of the opposition critics that Ontario has done little or nothing to limit the emissions of CO₂. Energy retrofits in our own social housing are an important and innovative measure that we've taken in converting to natural gas to reduce consumption; tightening up our Ontario Building Code to ensure that higher standards for energy conservation are built into our new structures. One of the first things we did in our budget of 1991-92 was to impose a gas-guzzler tax on cars that consume more fuel. These are all the kinds of measures, including the more recent announcement around dry-cleaning industrial restrictions, which I think go a long way towards reducing the emission of greenhouse gas.

I know my time is short because there is another speaker for the government who wishes to add to this debate. I would just quote from a booklet called Visions 2020: Youth Environment in the Future, which was the response of Canadian students to the Brundtland report. In it, the group from Glebe Collegiate in Ottawa said:

"We live in a consumer society and use staggering amounts of energy every day. The major source for this energy is the burning of fossil fuels, which emits large amounts of airborne chemicals.... Carbon dioxide has been linked directly to global warming."

Also, a booklet put out by the Global Action Plan for the Earth tells people how they can reduce energy consumption in their own homes and over the course of a year reduce consumption and emission of CO₂ by nine tons for an average family of four.

I could go on, Madam Speaker, but I yield the floor to the next speaker for the government.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have just a few minutes to participate in this exceedingly important debate on an issue that gets far too little attention in the Legislative Assembly and far too little attention nationally and internationally these days. All of us can well recall the attention that the environment received in the mid- and late-1980s and into the very early 1990s, until such time as the recession struck and attention switched to other issues.

I want to say that it's timely that this motion is before the Legislature. I want to inform those who would be listening that what you have to understand about Canada is that virtually all of the action is at the provincial level, and always has been. The federal government has a role and responsibility to set out the guidelines. It makes policy and pronouncements, and has over the years, and has certain operational obligations. But by and large in Canada, unlike perhaps some other countries, the provinces have jurisdiction over operations, and that's why Ontario has the opportunity to provide leadership in this particular field. What is lamentable is the fact that because there is little attention paid to environmental issues today, the pressure on any government to move forward as it should is diminished considerably.

I notice that the Ministry of Environment and Energy budget has been ravaged each time there is a budget that comes out. I've always believed that governments should not simply cut every ministry the same way. It should select its priorities and some ministries are going to be cut more than other ministries.

My concern for a Minister of Environment, for instance, trying to do his job in this particular case, is that we see cuts in the Environment and Energy ministry budgets: cuts in staff, cuts in resources, cuts in equipment. That means that the government doesn't have the same opportunity to meet its obligations that would be implied by this particular resolution.

My understanding is that the clean air program which was announced in 1990 has been deep-sixed in the ministry. It's totally abandoned. It's a very comprehensive program -- it's not a cheap program; it's not a program that has no disruption on the private sector -- but that has been totally abandoned by the government, which is very disappointing to see, because I think there were a lot of people elected on the government side in 1990 who would have been hopeful that the government would have proceeded vigorously and comprehensively with the clean air program in the province of Ontario.

We have a chance to be leaders. I like the fact that the member for Peterborough has raised this particular issue in the House. We should have more debates of this kind to put pressure on members of the cabinet who have responsibility for these things, to put pressure on the senior advisers to the Premier and to the ministers so that environmental issues of this kind can get the attention they should.

I notice that Friends of the Earth, which is an independent group, in one of its surveys gave Ontario a C- in terms of dealing with substance, dealing with issues related to air quality.

I hope the government will proceed to fulfil its obligations that it has in Ontario to help meet the national goals which have been set out by the federal government.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Further debate? Then the member for Peterborough may reply to the debate.

Ms Carter: I'd certainly like to thank all the contributors to this debate. I think they all agreed on the importance of the issue and that we need to work towards this objective.

I'd like to point out that there is no negativity in the motion I've put forward. I am not attacking anybody for what they have or haven't done. This is something where we need to take a positive approach. We all need to work together because this is a global thing. It's no good for Ontario to act if nobody else does. It is going to be a question of cooperation.

I have a letter that was written by Sheila Copps, the federal Environment minister, and I'd just like to read part of that:

"This government takes its obligations seriously and, consistent with the red book, has established a process for designing a national action plan to achieve emission targets. On November 17, federal, provincial and territorial energy and environment ministers approved a joint action plan on air quality issues and made a commitment to ongoing cooperation in this area.

"With respect to climate change, ministers agreed to instruct their officials to proceed with the development of options that will meet Canada's current commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000, and to develop sustainable options to achieve further progress in the reduction of emissions by the year 2005.

"The Canadian government supports the objective of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1988 levels by the year 2005. It will continue to work with the climate change task group and the measures working group to reach that goal. Environment Canada, working closely with all its partners, will be an active contributor in devising the case for an appropriate set of measures that will meet these objectives."

That is set out there. I hope Sheila and the federal government will live up to that.

It has been suggested during this debate that the Ontario government has not been taking action in this field. I'd certainly like to refute that. I have in my hand a document which lists the things that the Ontario government has been doing and is planning to do that are going to help towards this goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.

It's far too long a list for me to be able to read it. Some points have been mentioned, such as action involving Ontario Hydro and the gas utilities, housing policy and the building code, transportation policies, green communities initiatives, the industrial energy services program and far more.

Speaking as the member for Peterborough, I would like to mention that we have a green communities project in Peterborough. It's been tremendously successful. Households are visited; an audit is done of their, as it were, private energy situation; suggestions are made and, if followed up, consumers can find that for ever afterwards they will have reduced energy expenses so that the goal of helping the environment also helps people's pockets. It provides employment and it is putting large sums of money back into the local community, so it has very direct economic advantages.

There's no divergence of interests in this. Everybody's interests do come together on this issue: short-term economic and job interests and the question of the future that we're all looking at. I ask everybody to support this motion because, as I say, it is something that affects us all and it's something where we can all work together to get results.

1100

The Acting Speaker: The time for the ballot item has expired. A vote will be held on this resolution at 12 noon.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS / ÉDUCATEURS DE JEUNES ENFANTS

Mr Beer moved private member's notice of motion number 43:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should give formal legislative recognition to the profession of early childhood educators; and

Since early childhood educators have a large share of the responsibility for the care and education of young children in Ontario; and

Since despite the importance of this profession there are no formal entry standards for early childhood educators beyond the ECE diploma; and

Since there are no formal standards of practice nor any mechanism to ensure that early childhood educators are held accountable for their professional conduct; and

Since the Association of Early Childhood Educators, Ontario (AECEO) is an organization of early childhood educators and concerned individuals whose objective is to improve the quality of early childhood care and education, and has long held that some form of professional regulation is required to ensure that the needs of children and families are met;

Therefore, in order to protect children and families and increase the quality of care and education of young children, the government of Ontario should formally recognize the need for professional regulation of early childhood educators and should develop an act that prescribes, among other things, minimum entry standards, standards of practice and a code of ethics for early childhood educators. Draft legislation should be presented to this Legislature no later than the end of the 1994 legislative session.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): I welcome the opportunity to discuss this motion with members, because I think it is very much one that can have the support of all members. I believe that there are many positive reasons why at this time we want to move towards legislative recognition of early childhood educators and where some of the issues or some of the questions and the problems, many of which are similar to those in relation to the question of social workers which we discussed earlier in this House, are ones that can be met so we can ensure both that we recognize the professionalism of the early childhood educator and set up a system that is going to provide for the appropriate regulation and accountability of that profession and that we improve the provision of child care generally in this province.

At the opening of my remarks, I would like to note that in the gallery with us today are Velma Doran, who's the president of the Association of Early Childhood Education of Ontario; Kathy Stearns, who is from the provincial office and who is the membership coordinator; Robyn Gallamore, the executive director of the association; and Miss Carol Page Heyding, who is the chair of the legislative recognition committee of the AECEO. They have all been very much been involved in this issue for some time, along with others in the early childhood education field. I would simply like to note their presence and also to recognize the hard work that they have done over the past number of years in trying to bring about legislative recognition.

Let me then address some of the issues as we approach this matter. Over the course of the last number of years, certainly the last four years, we have had brought to the attention of the Legislature a number of specific things: Children First, which many members will recall was an important document that was presented in November 1990; more recently the Premier's Council report, Yours, Mine and Ours; an interesting document that was brought to the attention of the standing committee on social development called Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of Our Youngest Children, which comes from the Carnegie Foundation in New York; and for those of us who sit on the standing committee on social development, the hearings that we have been going through over the last number of weeks on children at risk.

I mention those documents and those hearings simply because I think what we, as members, have been hearing and are being made aware of is that the issue of children and youth, the issue of early childhood education, is a very critical one, an important one. Child care is very much a part of that, and therefore the role of the early childhood educator is critical.

I believe we're at a point where we can move forward and set out, as the association itself is urging, a process that will lead us then to a body for the early childhood educators that will be able to set out standards of practice, that will be able to set out an accountability function, propose entry standards and develop a voluntary reporting process and registration process.

The importance of that is twofold: One is that we all recognize how important it is going to be, for the rest of this decade and beyond, to develop greater flexibility, a greater variety of child care opportunities in this province. Everyone who has talked about the provision of better, more accessible child care has indicated clearly the importance of early childhood educators being part of that. I don't think there is any argument among the three parties on that issue.

We now have, after a decade or 15 years in which community colleges have had diploma programs for early childhood education -- Ryerson has a special degree program for early childhood education -- a wealth of individuals out there with a great deal of professional competence, but there is no body in a sense to be able to speak on their behalf and to act as an appropriate regulatory body to ensure that the profession is indeed as competent and as accountable and, quite frankly, as professional as the members want it to be, and I think as all of us would want it to be, whether it's as parents with young children in child care or just simply as citizens of this province who want to see the most effective system of child care that we can have with the best-trained people within that system.

I want to hasten to add here, I think one of the issues that always comes up around developing self-governing professions is, will that be exclusive? I think in the deliberations which the association has had, they have been taking great pains to ensure that this will be an inclusive organization, seeking to bring within it all of those who have earned early childhood education diplomas, and that the purpose of the legislative recognition is then to ensure that this professionalism can continue, that the appropriate programs can be developed to ensure proper in-service training and to continue to work at making the early childhood educator in Ontario the best-trained, the best-educated in Canada, in North America, in the world.

Assisting them in doing that, I want to bring to the attention of members that the association did a feasibility study. This study was funded by Health and Welfare Canada, and in it they surveyed some 1,000 parents and users of child care, some 2,000 early childhood educators and 25 key groups involved with children across the province and set out to ask a whole series of questions about how they might proceed in bringing about legislative recognition.

Now that particular group has followed up in response to this questionnaire, where I think it would come as no surprise that those who are active in the field of early childhood education are saying. "Yes, we need standards of practice; yes, we need an accountability function; yes, we need a number of things to make sure that we have an association, a collection of professionals who are going to be able to meet the needs that are out there." They have gone forward and taken that and have developed a process for drafting legislative recognition, and that particular document is going to be discussed with their membership very soon.

1110

That's why I believe that if today we as a Legislature can say that we approve in principle the need for legislative recognition, the association itself is then going to be able to sit down with the Minister of Community and Social Services with a model, to say: "How would this look? Is this something we could put into legislation? We as early childhood educators believe it has broad support from all of those who are active currently in the field." That could mean that we would be able to have draft legislation come back to this House in the fall, be able to deal with it and to pass it.

As the minister himself has said in another place, with myself and with the member for Burlington South, he sees this issue of legislative recognition as an important one. I know the ministry is looking at some other options to do with the Day Nurseries Act and some other models, and I think it is appropriate that it does that, but I know I have been persuaded that in terms of whatever changes we make to the Day Nurseries Act or to other acts, one of the key components of ensuring that we have the kind of child care we want and that we have an active group of professionals working within it should be legislative recognition.

I'd like in my opening remarks just to close with some comments that were made by John Sweeney, a former member of this House and former Minister of Community and Social Services. He said this in early 1989:

"With the best will in the world, we, the government, are simply not going to be able to do the number of inspections and the kind of monitoring that is probably necessary in a number of situations relating to child care. If we leave it totally up to us, we are not capable of doing the job by ourselves."

That is as true today as it was then. For us as legislators to ensure that we have an accountable profession of early childhood educators -- they want to be accountable so they can help us to ensure that we have those child care programs that are accountable -- we need to bring legislative recognition to the field of early childhood education. That is what this motion is all about, and I would ask for the support of all members of the House.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I once again welcome the opportunity to comment just briefly on this resolution from my colleague the member for York-Mackenzie. Parts of this resolution are interesting and I want to read some of it into the record:

"Since despite the importance of this profession there are no formal entry standards for early childhood educators beyond the ECE diploma; and

"Since there are no formal standards of practice nor any mechanism to ensure that early childhood educators are held accountable for their professional conduct; and

"Since the Association of Early Childhood Educators, Ontario (AECEO) is an organization of early childhood educators and concerned individuals whose objective is to improve the quality of early childhood care and education, and has long held that some form of professional regulation is required to ensure that the needs of children and families are met;

"Therefore, in order to protect children and families and increase the quality of care and education of young children, the government of Ontario should formally recognize the need for professional regulation of early childhood educators and should develop an act that prescribes, among other things, minimum entry standards, standards of practice and a code of ethics for early childhood educators. Draft legislation should be presented to this Legislature no later than the end of the 1994 legislative session."

I congratulate the member for York-Mackenzie for bringing this resolution to our attention today, because it deals with one of our most precious resources, and that's our children.

I have always believed that modern Ontario families need a variety of child care supports to allow them to fulfil modern obligations, including raising children, participating in the labour force and public life.

All children should have access to child care services regardless of family income or their parents' employment status. Parents should have the right to determine the nature and extent of their children's participation.

Child care should be of high quality. To ensure this high quality, child care services should be licensed and regulated, reflecting the best current knowledge about early childhood development as well as the varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds of Canadian families.

I would suggest that a wide range of service options is needed to assist modern families in their child care responsibilities, including full-day group day care, half-day nursery school programs, regulated family day care, parent and child drop-in programs, opportunities for parent education, toy-lending services, training and advice.

On page 10 of the Common Sense Revolution, Mike Harris notes:

"Our obligation to those in need is even greater in the case of our children. Children living in poverty suffer from significantly higher infant mortality rates, lower life expectancies and tend to receive poor nutrition and education."

We recommend the implementation of a learning and earning and parenting program: "Young single parents on welfare will be encouraged to stay in school and complete their education. If they meet attendance standards, they will be eligible for child care and bonuses in their welfare cheques."

On June 7, I received the following letter from Ms Lisa Teskey, who is the president of the Huronia branch of the Association of Early Childhood Educators, Ontario. She'd indicated to me that this resolution was coming before this Legislature today and was hoping that the resolution would have support. The basis of it, or the bottom line, as she says, is, "To protect the children and families of Ontario and to increase the quality of care and education for young children, we ask for your support of this resolution." I can assure Lisa that she has our support.

As well, Louisa Dyck of the early childhood education faculty of Conestoga College in Kitchener-Waterloo sent me a fax on June 8:

"As a follow-up to our conversation yesterday, I have had the opportunity to briefly outline the upcoming resolution with several colleagues. Unanimously, it is felt that this type of legislation is long overdue. While the Day Nurseries Act clearly sets out minimum standards for the physical facility, schedule and operation of a child care program, there are no safeguards in place with respect to standard practice and ethical behaviours of the staff which operate these programs and provides care for children and families." I think that's the basis of this whole resolution. They are "wholeheartedly behind this resolution and its implications for ensuring excellent care for young children in Ontario."

Once again, I'm behind this resolution too. I thank the member for York-Mackenzie for bringing it before us today.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): As my colleague opposite Mr Beer, the member for York-Mackenzie, has brought the issue forward, I think it's a valid one that we need to work on. I know he carried at one time the portfolio of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and understands the issue around the professionalism, because he used the word "professionalism." Some people still accept child care as a babysitting service in some communities. It's now becoming more evident that it is required as a professional, and people are trained as professionals during this process.

He also indicated documents called Children First, Yours, Mine and Ours and Starting Points. He talked about the committee, which is examining this issue and early detection and early prevention of high-risk children in our society. I believe the reports were very clear that we need to make sure that in the early years of our children we're developing and making sure that we do prevention in the most important way and also do detection. Detecting disabilities or children at high risk is very important for anyone, and especially for society, not necessarily the government. It's very important for a community.

I understand the attention that the member is trying to get in developing legislation extensively. I'm questioning whether it can be done so quickly, because I fully support the intent of the resolution, the intent of early childhood educators to improve the quality of child care. I know that the association presented a brief to the ministry staff this spring. Staff have been working with the association -- and I know that even when you were there, Mr Beer, there was work going on through that process -- in trying to develop a working plan that can be established. I know that they have made a presentation to the ministry. I also know that they have laid out in the presentation a sketch and the needs considered in order to make this work.

However, dealing with the legislative requirement -- everybody always refers to legislation, that legislation is required -- I believe that through amendments in regulation, making the regulation changes, we can improve the process. It's not only legislation in order to meet time lines and to put programs into place.

1120

I understand what he's saying about a self-regulated body, but it's important for us to move in a process in which we can start to address some of the concerns that were expressed in a document by the Premier's Council -- Yours, Mine and Ours -- and work towards the ultimate goal of legislation to create a self-regulated body. But we as a government and as a Legislature can move very quickly on improving things in the work that is already there without having to bring legislation forward.

Qualifications: We need to address that. We could amend the number of qualified registered ECEs and put more time in place. We should continue to establish and approve courses of instruction. We could provide for granting of certification for those who are graduates already. This is one of the ways of helping the professionals, with certification of this process.

As we move forward in addressing it, I don't believe only the province should do it. I know the federal government's commitment to child care and establishing better child care. I believe we need a national strategy to making sure we are looking after our children throughout this country and throughout this province.

I believe the government's intention is still to move forward. I know the member opposite is very sincere about this, because during the committee process we all are very interested in resolving the problems facing our young people. As our society becomes more of a twoincome society, with more dependency on the system or for child care to be provided for our children, we want to make sure everything in is place so we do not run into high-risk children in our communities.

But I have a very serious problem, and I don't know if it can be achieved. It's the legislative requirement of 1994, and I'm being sincere with the member. I fully support the resolution that has been put forward. I understand clearly. We should have done this years ago; we always say we should have done things years ago.

I just know that with the presentation that was done to the ministry in the spring -- as a matter of fact, the ministry is even going to be attending a planning workshop tomorrow -- the government's commitment is still there. I'm wondering if we can move very quickly to establish the legislative requirement that will be needed to make this thing move forward.

If the year 1994 wasn't there, you'd have my total support, but I'm afraid to mislead individuals into thinking it's going to be achievable. We always hear people say: "You have to have full conversation. You have to make sure you involve the groups. You have to make sure we can get all-party consent to expedite this legislation." Usually, once we get legislation in the House, it gets stalled. We need to make sure that all partners are involved in this process so that when legislation is tabled, it is expedited through its normal process so we can establish the criteria needed for these professionals, needed by the families and the children of our communities so we can try to start to eliminate some of the problems that exist in our communities around high-risk children.

To the member opposite, I respectfully regret that I will not support the resolution based on the 1994 legislative year, but he has my total support in his resolution, which he has clearly put forward.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am indeed pleased to enter into the debate today. I certainly feel that our primary role as legislators is always to ensure that whatever policy, whatever legislation, whatever direction we take, we'll protect our children. That is something I think we actually have unanimity on in this Legislature, and I can tell you from experience over the last seven years that there are very few issues in this Legislature that we are unanimous on.

I guess the question is, how do we do this? We have to protect our children in many ways. We protect them by ensuring that the care they need is there. We ensure that their future is protected. And that's why even the deficit is a child's issue and an issue for the protection of our children: It's that generation that indeed is going to end up having to share and deal with our legacy.

Having said that we as legislators believe in the protection of our children, what does that have to do with the resolution by the member for York-Mackenzie that is before us today? First of all, I would like to commend the member for York-Mackenzie for bringing this issue forward.

We all know that over the past 20 years the role of women in this province has expanded. At one time, we were primary care givers and many of us did not work outside the home. But that has changed over succeeding decades to the stage where in the last 10 years many women have gone back into the workforce, and those women have children. While men in our society have taken much more of an evolutionary role towards caring for the children and men are in many cases sharing that role today, there still becomes the problem: If the women go back into the workforce, who is to care for our children? So there's been a dramatic increase over the last 10 years in the need for childhood educators.

As the member for Chatham mentioned, some people still believe this is babysitting, but there are many members of this Legislature who do not believe that to be true. We are educating our children, we are informing them, we are guiding them, we are nurturing them. All this is provided in early childhood education.

The question is, do we need certain standards in the guiding of our children? Of course we all say yes, there must be standards, and we know the Day Nurseries Act provides standards, but I would point out to you that they are minimum standards. What we need here for early childhood educators is a clear indication that they may set standards, that they may set accountability mechanisms for their profession, that in fact they can ensure the quality of child care in this province.

The member for Port Hope, I believe it was, said he's concerned about the timetable. This timetable is a goal, because we all know how long it takes us to do anything in this dysfunctional Legislature. We have to have a goal. We have to have a time frame. But I for one -- and I'm sure the member for York-Mackenzie will make the same pledge today -- we will say to the government that if you with goodwill go forward with this draft legislation, and if it comes to December and you find you need some more time, we will say: "Yes, let us work together. We will grant you that time." We just want to set a time frame so that it doesn't drag on for ever.

There have been questions, not only, "Why do we need this?" but also, "What about the cost?" The cost is not going to devolve on government.

Somebody has just told me that Randy Hope is the MPP for Chatham-Kent. I thank the member for that information and correct the record.

The cost of this will not be funded through taxpayers' dollars. It will be funded through membership of the organization and through other revenue-generating activities. It is probably the Association for Early Childhood Education, Ontario, that will take the lead in this, because it is the largest group involved in this issue and it has certainly taken the lead in bringing this to the fore, but that has yet to be determined.

The important thing is that this is not a measure that's going to have a lot of cost to the taxpayers. This is a measure to ensure accountability, to ensure standards, to ensure that the quality of child care is upheld.

Some people may say that we have a diploma or a degree in early childhood education provided by either Ryerson, where it is a four-year degree, or by many of our community colleges, so there's already a standard. I say to them that I suspect most of the members of this Legislature have degrees of one sort or another; I would also submit that because we've gone to university it does not mean we're competent, it doesn't mean we're qualified, it doesn't mean we're aware of standards, it doesn't grant some right to know what we're doing. I also don't mean to imply that those of us who are university educated don't know what we're doing.

I'm saying, let's make sure that early childhood educators who come out with a substantial body of knowledge are aware of the ethics, the standards, and very high standards, that we must meet in the care of our children. Let's have that extra measure of security. That's all we're asking for. We aren't asking for an onerous system. We aren't asking for bureaucratic regulations. We're asking for a very simple thing: Let us ensure the quality of child care in this province, and that those who are providing that care have the highest standards possible.

I ask all members of this Legislature to support the member for York-Mackenzie. I thank him for bringing it forward, and I think it's indicative of his care for children and for the care of children by all members of this Legislature.

1130

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): First of all, let me say that I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the resolution. Throughout my political career, both 10 years as a public school trustee in Halton region and nine years here in the Ontario Legislature, I have had occasion to work closely with early childhood educators. I've watched the progress and the development of their professional accreditation and the work they do, and I'm pleased today to join my colleague from York-Mackenzie with this appropriate resolution.

I've come to respect and appreciate the work of the early childhood educators' organization. I'm not sure whether my colleague mentioned it earlier, but they formed in 1950, so they have a rich history of contribution and certainly were there at the beginning of the development of the growing need and the awareness of early childhood education in this province, whether in the form of formal or informal day care or earlier entrance to school, or the Montessori movement, perhaps more expensive but still a form of earlier access to educational opportunities for our children.

Today I want to set out some of the concerns I have, not with the approach that's being taken, because I fully support that, but what I think is some of the hazardous turf this organization is about to embark upon if in fact the resolution comes forward. But having listened to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services for this province, I sense that the government will not be supporting this bill and therefore, unfortunately, in spite of the protestations that this is an open and free-vote forum, it may not succeed. That would be truly tragic, but it would be not inconsistent with the government's approach in these matters around Community and Social Services support agencies and the work they do in this province.

I can only say, to put on the record very clearly, that the NDP government of Bob Rae promised adoptees and adoption agencies in this province that it would bring forward legislation, and when push came to shove, the minister, Mr Silipo, bailed out and said, "No, we're not going to do it," and a private member of the Legislature had to bring forward an agenda based on the promises made by the minister and Bob Rae's government that they would proceed.

I cite the second example, which is now about a year old, of a social worker act for Ontario, the exact same situation: a legitimate request to formulate professional accreditation with standards of practice and disciplinary actions that are necessary for very noble and worthwhile purposes in this province because of the unique work in social services and education involving children and vulnerable people, that the social worker act should be promoted. Again Bob Rae and his government promised it, but when push came to shove, they pushed it and shoved it off to private members' hour and it has disappeared somewhere in the bowels of one of the ministries, if in fact it's being looked at at all.

So now we come to this third one. I believe this is only the third bill in social policy or social-educational policy or human resources policy within this government that deals with the notion that it's time we got on with formulating a professional accreditation and regulation framework for them.

I don't wish to be a pessimist, but when Tony Silipo, the minister, promised this group on May 22, 1993 -- and Mr Beer and I were in the room at the time he promised it, each representing our respective caucuses. We were present for it. We had unanimity, we had agreement. The member for York-Mackenzie, to his credit, worked closely with the organization and put forward a private bill as well.

But the government has again seen fit to abandon that third promise to the third group of persons working in the social policy field to say, "No, it's off; I didn't really mean what I said." So now we're here before the Legislature with a private bill which should be supported by all members of the House, which, for reasons, the government is saying no to now.

One has to ask, why is the government saying no to this? Why would the NDP government of Bob Rae, who made so many promises in the last election about day care and early childhood education, abandon the interests of these cornerstone, front-line workers who provide the professional services? Why would he abandon that?

We can speculate that one of the aims and objectives of any professional accreditation group is to enhance their wage package, to make it more equitable, to make it relative to the work done by a teacher in a kindergarten classroom and to look in comparative terms on those salary scales.

That's pretty intimidating to the government of the day, because they are the primary funder of day care in this province. We won't get into the debate of commercial day care versus non-profit day care, but that's the chosen direction of the government. Every time they destroy a private centre and engage in creating a new government-run facility, they are creating a straight-line debt to the government and less so to those people who pay a portion of their day care services.

This puts incredible pressure on the government's current overextended budgets, and it seems rather ironic that the very ideological motivation for expanding day care may ultimately be the very reason why the government is saying no to this organization, because, "Once we regulate you, your salaries are all going to go up."

If that's what the government's game is, I think it's wrong and it's inappropriate. People should be compensated fairly and equitably in this province for the work they do. The work of early childhood educators is of a very, very high quality and they need the authority to make it even better, make it even better because, as a regulatory body, they can discipline those members who act out.

During the debate on a social worker act, we were dealing with a case of a person who was working with children, had sexually assaulted a child, but because there wasn't a framework of regulation, this person was allowed to serve time for the crime of sexually assaulting a child but then could return to that profession because there is no professional regulation.

In fact, in many respects that's the same situation. I have been fighting for a case of a small child who was sexually assaulted in a day care centre in Halton, and the case was never taken to court because they felt there was insufficient evidence. But that individual is still out there, working in a day care centre. It's absolutely, fundamentally wrong. If we had a regulatory body, government could say: "Look, this is your own member. You discipline and you set some standards. Talk to us as a government and tell us what we would do to ensure the safety of those children." There are some really valid, strong reasons for the concept of regulation and those are supportable.

I will indicate to the early childhood educators that I don't want to leave the issue of salary scale, because sometimes organizations are used by governments, who say, "You back us up and say nice things about some of our moves on day care and then we'll promise you, quietly on the side, that we'll bring in your act to support you." This goes on all the time.

But the fact is that when bump funding occurred for day care workers in this province, it was only given to those women workers in non-profit day care centres. I was disappointed. I had hoped that the early childhood educators would have supported fully the notion that all women workers as early childhood educators deserve to be treated the same, and not to have fallen into the trap the government had made: to create a definition that early childhood educators were scab labourers if they worked in a private centre, but if they worked in a non-profit centre they were deserving of equity and funding and enhancement. These would have been terribly underpaid, highly professional women workers in this province, and I was rather disappointed. Sometimes organizations fall into the trap of saying yes to the government's actions, when in that case they discriminated against a whole group of predominantly women early childhood educators.

I wish we had more time in this debate. I wanted to speak about the seamless day and how this organization could be a very powerful tool to help develop a seamless day for our children. I will be supporting the bill and I thank my colleagues.

1140

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It is indeed a pleasure to rise today in this place and speak with regard to this subject and to lend some support to the member for York-Mackenzie in his efforts to get some recognition for this profession and to get this issue put on the table so that some of us are speaking about it. Certainly, it is being spoken about in many other venues and in many other rooms around this precinct, but this is the first time in this package that it has come to the Legislature so that we could have this more formal debate and discussion around the resolution that he has put forward.

I join with him and the members for Eglinton, Burlington South and Chatham-Kent in speaking, and speaking very positively, about the contribution that the professionals who work in this field offer by way of their time, their energy and their talent and to recognize the tremendous effort and time and resources that they themselves have put into preparing themselves to work in this field. It is certainly an important field. I don't think there's anybody in this place who would in any way suggest that we shouldn't be putting whatever resources we can get our hands on into making sure that this field of early childhood education is given an opportunity to do the job that we all know is necessary in today's society.

So I have no difficulty in supporting this resolution. I do, though, in parallel with my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent, have some difficulty with some of the time frame in that this is a big subject, quite complicated, and I think it deserves, because of the importance of the subject, some discussion and whatever discussion is required to make sure that we do the job right from beginning to end and that we don't end up in a situation, as we do so often around this place, where we're trying to ram something into a short time frame, get it done to appease one particular group, and in the end make less than the best job that is possible happen around it.

I've had some very brief discussion with the member for York-Mackenzie here this morning telling me that if that is the only issue that would get in the way of us supporting this, then we can talk about that. He put some time frames in so that this thing doesn't drag on for ever, so that there's some block of time that we're looking at, and I appreciate that and understand that. I think it's important that we do give ourselves some targets, some time lines, and if you're flexible in that, certainly I think we can work together to move this thing forward and get it done in a timely fashion.

I just wanted to raise a few issues this morning that come to my mind as I look at this that I think we need to consider as we look at this particular piece and try to do something with it that will be in fact helpful in the long run. It comes to me from my previous work in the community. My wife is an early childhood educator -- at least was before we started to have kids. I have four small children, so she's an early childhood educator in another sense.

Mr Jackson: She still is.

Mr Martin: She still is, yes. Certainly, watching her and watching her interact with her colleagues I've come to a greater appreciation and understanding of this field. I've also had some significant interaction with the folks in Sault Ste Marie, my home riding, who work very hard at making sure that in our city there is every opportunity for young people to get the best that there is possible by way of early formation.

I also sit, as some have referred to here, on the standing committee on social development and have sat in on a number of interesting discussions over my three and half years here around the question of the kinds of provisions to be put in place for the development of young people in our communities, the mental health of young people in our communities, and have found that very stimulating and interesting and helpful.

I also sat for a long period early in my time here on this committee looking at the whole question of the Regulated Health Professions Act, which talks to me as well about how complicated this kind of thing can become. So I have some understanding of the complications that can happen.

Just a couple of thoughts. It seems to me that we have to be in this very careful that we understand that the care of children is not just the jurisdiction of one particular group of people, however trained and prepared to do a very good job at that. In putting this piece of legislation together, we need to know how this particular group of professionals will interact and fit into that whole mix of things that are out there.

I think it's somebody out of the native community who said it takes a whole community to educate a child. I certainly believe in that. In getting our heads around this particular initiative, we need to be looking at how this professional group interacts with other professional groups and indeed the rest of the community out there.

The other piece that I'd like to put on the table as something we need to look at as well is the question of what we're doing in education today around lifelong learning and, as the member for Burlington South referred to, this issue of seamless service, not seamless just in terms of a day, but from birth to death. Certainly the early childhood piece, in terms of education, is one of the most critical and crucial of the pieces that we look at.

In the Ministry of Education, in which I have served for three and a half years as parliamentary assistant to the minister, we're looking at the question of early childhood education and how it fits and how we best deliver that in the community. I think we have to get a ways down the road with that as well so that we're not putting the cart before the horse in any sense, so that all of this fits together and moves forward in a way that is consistent and supportive, one piece to the other. So those are two pieces that I put on the table that we need to look at.

I think this is a worthy initiative to support. I will be supporting it, with the proviso that we have to be careful about the time lines. We need them but we can't be bound by them.

I congratulate the member for bringing it forward and look forward to further activity in the not-too-distant future.

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : C'est tout un honneur pour moi de me lever aujourd'hui et d'appuyer mon bon collègue le député de York-Mackenzie.

Ne me demandez surtout pas si je suis surpris qu'un tel individu ait présenté un tel projet de loi. Je ne suis pas surpris ; il est tout à fait normal. C'est bien typique de l'engagement de longue date de mon collègue le député de York-Mackenzie de présenter un tel projet de loi pour la reconnaissance législative des éducateurs et des éducatrices de jeunes enfants en Ontario.

Il est évident que ce projet de loi est requis, et ce depuis très longtemps, requis parce que, entre autres, au cours des 10 dernières années le système de service à l'enfance a vécu une expansion fulgurante. De plus en plus d'éducateurs et d'éducatrices de jeunes enfants offrent leurs services à travers la province, à l'extérieur des foyers et un peu partout. On sait très bien que les familles sont de plus en plus mobiles, avec des carrières et des emplois à poursuivre, d'où un besoin d'offrir une gamme d'options plus adaptées aux besoins de ces familles.

Évidemment, toute cette expansion fulgurante ne s'est pas faite sans problème. Par exemple, les éducateurs et éducatrices ont ainsi acquis une responsabilité accrue face aux enfants. Il y a aussi de plus en plus de demandes de services, les attentes des parents et des familles et, tristement, le gouvernement s'admet débordé dans ses capacités de surveillance et d'inspection.

Mais quels sont les points forts de ce projet de loi ? Pour moi, il est très évident que le projet de loi aidera à standardiser les normes de services à l'enfance. Il augmentera la protection offerte aux enfants et aux familles. Il pourra ajouter aux normes de la qualité du service offert aux enfants et aux familles.

1150

Il y a une chose qui est très évidente également : que le projet de loi a joui d'un appui massif auprès des intervenants intéressés au dossier de service de l'éducation des jeunes enfants. Je salue tout particulièrement les représentantes ici présentes de l'Association ontarienne des éducatrices et des éducateurs de jeunes enfants. Cette association-là a préparé un sondage auprès d'intervenants, et ce sondage a démontré un très vif intérêt, un très vif désir d'une telle reconnaissance législative.

Les gens veulent voir la mise sur pied de normes, de pratiques et d'un code de déontologie avec un mécanisme de surveillance et de discipline. Ils veulent voir également la mise sur pied de normes d'admissibilité. De plus, les répondants ont dit vouloir le développement d'un processus pour apporter librement toute infraction perçue au code de déontologie et d'un processus d'adhésion libre à un regroupement d'éducateurs certifiés. Je pense que ça fait longtemps qu'on le demande. Ça fait longtemps que l'Ontario est prêt pour ce genre d'association de reconnaissance législative.

Vous vous rappellerez, il y a quelques années j'avais présenté un projet de loi similaire pour faire une reconnaissance législative des traducteurs et des interprètes de l'Ontario. Ça a été adopté à l'unanimité quelques mois plus tard et ça a été une première à l'échelle mondiale. On me dit que, malheureusement, ce projet de loi-là ne serait pas une première à l'échelle mondiale, mais quand même ce serait évidemment une première à l'échelle de l'Ontario. Ce n'est pas un luxe ; c'est une nécessité.

Ce que la société est en train de vivre, et ce depuis nombre d'années, et ce que la société va vivre au cours des prochaines années : il est évident qu'une reconnaissance législative de ces éducateurs et éducatrices auprès des jeunes enfants de l'Ontario est un besoin qui est présent.

J'espère que tous les députés présents et députées présentes daigneront accorder dès aujourd'hui un appui à l'unanimité à ce digne projet de loi visant une reconnaissance très honorable à un groupe d'individus qui fait de l'excellent travail auprès des jeunes de l'Ontario.

J'ai entendu les craintes de mes deux collègues néo-démocrates face à l'échéancier de la mise sur pied d'un tel projet de loi. J'espère sincèrement que cette crainte qu'ils expriment, et que je regrette, ne les causera pas à ne pas appuyer ce projet de loi-là.

Vous avez dit clairement que vous êtes inquiets de l'échéancier. Bon, soit, ça c'est votre perception, mais sachez, et je dis ça sans méchanceté, que j'aurais pensé que votre gouvernement aurait apporté ce genre de projet de loi il y a déjà très longtemps. Puisque vous ne l'avez pas fait, mon bon ami le député de York-Mackenzie le fait.

Mais ce n'est pas le temps d'être partisans, parce que les besoins des enfants sont là, ils nous attendent. Cette reconnaissance législative également est dû depuis longtemps.

Donc, j'espère que tous et toutes ensemble, nous daignerons accorder un appui unanime dès aujourd'hui et que mes collègues du parti gouvernemental s'affaireront d'une façon diligente à encourager leurs propres collègues qui siègent au Conseil des ministres à développer et à faire reconnaître et à passer en sanction royale dans les plus brefs délais, tel que demandé par mon collègue de York-Mackenzie, à demander et à voir à ce que, très prochainement et aussi prochainement que possible, l'on puisse voir apporter en Chambre un tel projet de loi, celui de mon collègue de York-Mackenzie, qu'on y aille de l'avant et que ce soit réalisé dans les plus brefs délais.

Je m'en voudrais, avant de terminer, de ne pas souligner l'excellente contribution que fait l'Association ontarienne des éducatrices et éducateurs de jeunes enfants jusqu'à présent, d'appuyer notre collègue de York-Mackenzie, qui présente en Chambre aujourd'hui ce projet de loi.

Je souhaite, je le répète, que tout le monde va voter à l'unanimité au nom de l'enfance et des jeunes enfants en Ontario.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm very pleased to stand and speak, for the very short time I have, in relation to the private member's resolution in regard to early childhood educators in this province.

While I'm in full support of the intent of the resolution by the member for York-Mackenzie, I do indeed have some problems around the time frame suggested by the member. I believe this is such a very important issue that we need some time for in-depth discussion and analysis with respect to the accountability mechanisms, roles and responsibilities related to drafting and regulating the profession. I believe that is required before any legislation could be drafted.

I believe there are many opportunities where we can work with the professions outside of the regulations. For example, we could begin to look at how we can set standards for staff qualifications; look at other mechanisms for improving quality, including enhanced training; board accountability; site accreditation etc. Those are some of the areas we could look at outside of legislation, but I indeed welcome the very brief opportunity I have to get up and support the intent of the member's resolution.

With four kids going through the school system, I know how important early childhood education really is. I support the intent of the resolution, but I do have some problems with the time frame suggested by the member. Because of that, I feel I will have to be voting no on the resolution.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for York-Mackenzie, you have two minutes in reply.

Mr Beer: I want to thank all the members who have participated in the debate for the support they have given to the basic intent of the motion.

I'd like to address the concerns around the timing, because I would like to urge the government members to support this motion. I think it's important that we do try to speak with one voice on this, and perhaps I can say some things in my closing remarks that will give you a way of supporting it. It is not put forward in the sense of trying to put you on a particular hot spot. The reason that we put in the reference to the end of the legislative session -- if you look at the wording it refers to draft legislation.

I know, and as my friend and colleague the member for Chatham-Kent has said, there has been a lot of work going on between the government and the association to do with this issue and others that relate to child care, and I think on the whole it's a good working relationship. In any government, whether it's you or us or the third party, there are always going to be some issues and some problems, but I think the reason we put that date in and what we were after was to just give it some impetus.

Reference has been made to the RHPA and other regulatory acts that we've dealt with. I know we don't want to spend 10 years on this, but I think we've learned a lot, quite frankly, from going through that specific exercise that will help us.

With respect to the time frame, we see that as a goal. Certainly, it may be that we arrive at the end of the fall where a lot of work has been done but a specific legislative act can't be presented to the House, or where perhaps the government has in the fall or at some point decided to issue a white paper that may include, as the original RHPA did, draft components they want for discussion.

I think that is fine, and I'm not going to stand up and say that the member from Chatham-Kent is a miserable whatever and whatever, because he's not. But I think what is important, and what is important to the representatives from the association and for those who are involved in early childhood education, is a clear sense that we in this legislative body are seized of the issue, that we see it as being terribly important in terms of the provision of good-quality, accessible child care and that we want the early childhood educators to be a key part of that as a professional self-governing body. I believe that is the goal they have.

I am optimistic, quite frankly, that with the work they have done and the work that has been ongoing, we have a chance to bring in draft legislation. But I say to the government members, let's not get hung up on that. I think the intent is just to set a good, strong working pace, and if we can do that I think that is sufficient, and in 1994-95 we'll get this thing dealt with. So I again urge all members to support this motion.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 61, standing in the name of Mrs Carter. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mrs Carter has moved private member's resolution number 44. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 62, standing in the name of Mr Beer. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Beer has moved private member's resolution number 43. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

I declare the motion carried.

All matters related to private members' business have been debated. I will now leave the chair, and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health will be aware that there is a great need for expanded dialysis services at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital in my riding of Kenora. I have received many calls and letters from people throughout the riding who have relayed to me their frustration and concern over this issue.

In particular I would like to bring to the minister's attention the case of Virginia Zroback, who is a resident of Kenora and one of many who has to travel to Winnipeg three times a week for treatment. Mrs Zroback and her husband, Carl, travel every Monday, Wednesday and Friday for a total of 18 hours per week by car out of the province to receive care that is not available to her in Kenora.

I understand the frustration of Virginia and Carl Zroback and their two children, and I regret that this government and the Minister of Health have chosen to overlook this issue. Clearly, for the minister to ignore the plea of people such as Virginia and Carl and many more in my riding is cruel and unjust.

I would like to know when this government will review the request of the Lake of the Woods District Hospital board for funding and when the people who desperately need this service will no longer have to leave their families and homes to travel outside the province for this service.

I am told that the board members and the district health council have acknowledged the need for expanded dialysis service at the hospital and have made a request to the Minister of Health for assistance. Apparently the only thing that is holding up the funding for this service is the minister's signature.

How long are people like Virginia and Carl and many other families expected to wait before this minister and her government provide the services that my constituents deserve and expect from their government? Northerners are tired of being ignored by this NDP government.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I rise to inform all members of the House that the second annual Memorial Conference for Victims of Violence will be held on Sunday, June 12, at Brant Bible Church in Burlington.

The event is organized by Debbie Mahaffy to honour the memory of victims of crime. It is also a time for the victims' families to join together with those who try to share their burden of pain and to promote victims' rights and the reform of our justice system.

The conference is held annually on or near June 15, for it was on that day three years ago that the Mahaffy family first learned of the disappearance of Leslie. June 15 represents the experience of prolonged victimization suffered by all crime victims and their families.

This conference is not just a memorial service. It is a time for all advocates for victims to rededicate themselves to the cause of reforming Ontario's justice system, which continues to have its primary focus on the criminal rather than on the victims and their families.

Last year, at Debbie's personal request, I tabled private member's Bill 86, An Act to establish a Victims' Memorial Day in Ontario as a day to help increase public awareness of victims' rights. On their behalf, I appeal to Bob Rae to go beyond condolences and to respond to their pleas for justice with decisive legislative action, as outlined in several private bills before this House such as Bill 19, An Act to establish the Rights of Victims of Crime; Bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime; Bill 148, An Act to amend the Coroners Act; and Bill 150, the Registration of Pedophiles Act.

The families of crime victims look to all members of this House to protect their rights. As Priscilla de Villiers stated, "Believe me, everyone can become a victim."

FRED PARGETER

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to pay tribute to a D-Day veteran from Smithville, a fine man who unfortunately passed away six weeks before the 50th anniversary of D-Day.

Fred Pargeter was in his mid-80s when he died, but those who knew him say he had the vigour of a much younger man. He was involved in countless community activities. Fred is best remembered as the sergeant at arms at the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 393, in Smithville, for his hard work on the board of the Legion Villa senior citizens' complex, and no one will forget his witty sense of humour.

Although he was proud to be one of the many soldiers who helped liberate Europe, Fred never played down the horror of war. During Poppy Week each November, Fred urged local school children to remember those who fought and died for our freedom.

In 1991 Fred was kind enough to tell his D-Day story to the local newspaper, a story I'd like to share. According to the article, the most terrifying part was hitting the beach. Bullets and exploding mortar shells were everywhere. He described it as hell and said a lot of good men were lost. Fred's own landing craft was immediately sunk by fire, but the jeep he was in touched down in the surf and made it to shore. Eventually they fought their way inland, and the rest is history.

I'd like to thank Fred for his valiant effort. If Fred were alive today, he'd probably give me hell for bringing attention to his story. He was a modest man with a big heart and he will be missed.

VETERANS' HOUSING

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): There are over 250,000 veterans and their families in Ontario. Now some of their comrades need help with their housing. These veterans require the housing now, and instead they're getting a snow job by the Ministry of Housing.

It is an unmitigated disgrace that this government continues to stall these needy veterans who in their youth served their country faithfully. Many of them fought on D-Day and want to know where their housing is today. This group is not getting any younger and their housing needs are getting more acute.

The war veterans have applied to the Ministry of Housing and the Jobs Ontario Homes program for a funding commitment for their Wingate Manor non-profit housing project.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Do you support the moratorium?

Mr Kwinter: This very deserving group has applied for funding on three separate occasions, only to be met by a blitzkrieg of paperwork. They have made many sacrifices for our country and a more deserving group cannot be found. They were flying planes for Canada against the Nazis long before Flying Toad ever existed, and I would say that they should be given the kind of consideration they deserve.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, tell them you want a moratorium.

Mr Kwinter: It isn't a matter of whether or not there is a moratorium; there are housing units being allocated, and you will not find a more deserving group. This is a group that is deserving of the government's support.

THOMAS R. MOORE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It is a privilege to honour a colleague and friend. Today in London we are celebrating the retirement of the greatest parliamentarian this province has known since the Honourable John P. Robarts.

I refer of course to Thomas R. Moore, executive secretary for the London Board of Education. Tom singlehandedly kept faith with Robert's Rules of Order and ensured that trustees always spoke only to the topic at hand and never exceeded their allotted time. Would that Mr Moore's skills were evidenced in this House -- well, with a few exceptions.

I had the privilege of working with him when I was a trustee from 1973 to 1989. My friend Mae Parkinson and I often blamed Tom for encouraging us to get into politics after our frustration at not being allowed to vote on the board's budget committee.

He was a committed person to students, teachers, staff and trustees; a prolific writer, educator, historian in charge of archives; president of the Ontario Association of School Business Officials; campaign chair for the American Association of School Business Officials president Jack Morris, and the list goes on.

We worked together on many board projects. We attended professional development seminars where we learned and presented. The OASBO and AASBO conferences provided us time to visit, travel and argue educational issues.

Tom is a gentleman and a scholar. His contribution to education in London was significant. The Board of Education for the City of London will never be the same. We will miss him very much and extend our best wishes for good health and happiness to Tom, Alice and his family.

1340

ETHNOCULTURAL COUNCIL OF LONDON

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to congratulate the Ethnocultural Council of London on the success of its recent forum on multiculturalism and education. Through presentations by a panel of speakers and lively debate and discussion, this forum raised awareness and explored a number of issues.

Professor Peter Chimbos examined multiculturalism in the Canadian context and highlighted its essential role as a bulwark of unity. Dr Jean Hewitt, superintendent of schools for the London Board of Education, stressed the necessity of equity and multiculturalism in creating a strong framework for our educational programs. Merv Caldwell, London education officer for the western Ontario region, discussed ways in which the success of the international languages program relies on the work and involvement of the entire community.

Over 15 ethnocultural groups from London were represented at this event, held at the Ukrainian Cultural Centre in London.

Increased awareness, exploration and open discussion: these are the beneficial outcomes and examples of the positive process used in this forum on multiculturalism and education.

In concluding, I recognize London ethnocultural council president Lionel Worrell for his work in organizing this event. Such forums offer an excellent opportunity to build unity through diversity.

CARE OF ALZHEIMER PATIENTS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am rising once again in the House to plead the case of Alzheimer patients and their families and friends, who are all impacted by the inadequate facilities and services available to meet the medical needs of an extremely vulnerable group of people in our society.

It is not uncommon for family members to call the constituency offices of MPPs to ask if there is some way that the Alzheimer patient in their family can be moved to the top of the waiting list for admission to a medical facility that can deal with the very difficult challenges presented by people suffering from the advanced stages of Alzheimer disease.

Naturally, it would not be appropriate for political representatives to insist that a particular patient be moved to the front of the line and that others be required to wait longer.

What is appropriate, however, and what I'm doing again today, is requesting that the Minister of Health provide adequate funding to ensure that more beds are available in nursing homes to serve the needs of Alzheimer patients and that home care and respite services be increased to alleviate the unfair and tragic burden now being borne by family care givers who themselves are facing mental anguish and physical fatigue as they struggle to assist a person dear to them.

Those seniors' homes, such as Linhaven in St Catharines, that serve patients at this time have experienced greater difficulty in assisting Alzheimer victims because of inadequate provincial funding. Let's remember those who themselves cannot remember by investing in the kind of care that seniors with Alzheimer deserve.

OPTIMIST CLUB ANNIVERSARY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise to acknowledge the worldwide celebration of 75 years of Optimism. Optimist International is one of the world's largest and most active service organizations, with over 165,00 members in 4,200 Optimist Clubs across the United States, Canada and the Caribbean. Following their motto, "Friend of Youth," Optimist Clubs annually conduct over 60,000 service projects which reach out to five million young people. For 75 years, Optimist Clubs have taken a hands-on approach to youth and community service.

Optimist Clubs were formed in response to the major social change brought on by the Industrial Revolution. The first official Optimist Club was started in Buffalo, New York, in 1911.

The Optimist creed best conveys what being an Optimist entails:

"Promise yourself...To be so strong that nothing can disturb your peace of mind. To talk health, happiness and prosperity to every person you meet. To make all your friends feel that there is something in them. To look at the sunny side of everything and make your optimism come true. To think only of the best, to work only for the best and expect only the best. To be just as enthusiastic about the success of others as you are about your own. To forget the mistakes of the past and press on to the greater achievements of the future. To wear a cheerful countenance at all times and to give every living creature a smile. To give so much time to the improvement of yourself that you have no time to criticize others. To be too large for worry, too noble for anger, too strong for fear and too happy to permit the presence of trouble."

I congratulate the Optimist Clubs of North America.

NORTHLAND POWER PROJECT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise today to extend my congratulations to the community of Iroquois Falls after a year and a half of hard work and being able to secure the Northland Power project to its community.

Members would know that back in December 1992 Ontario Hydro made a fairly difficult decision around non-utility generators and froze the applications of a number of proponents before Ontario Hydro at the time to construct non-utility generating stations. At that particular time, Northland Power had before Hydro a project of some 150 megawatts that was going to be constructed in the community of Iroquois Falls.

What's interesting to note, and why I want to congratulate the community, is that rather than turning on each other and turning on us, what we ended up doing is working together: Northland Power with the people there, Mr Timerty, Mr Brown and others, working with the mayor and council, Mr Brown and his council; working with the community through the unions in that community, what used to be the Canadian Paperworkers Union back then, Jim French, Ed Godfrey, and a number of others I haven't mentioned; working with the economic development council, with the downtown business association, the chamber of commerce and, most importantly, the citizens of Iroquois Falls and other citizens around northeastern Ontario.

We managed to work together in order to demonstrate to Ontario Hydro that this was indeed a project that was viable to go ahead, not only important to Northland Power but important to Abitibi, because what this project will do in the long term is not only to create much-needed employment within the community, but to secure the major employer there, Abitibi.

My congratulations to the community of Iroquois Falls for the job well done. Finally we can go ahead with this most worthy project.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures report for the fiscal year 1993-94. The members will find a copy in their desks in the chamber.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would invite all members to join me in welcoming a former member of the assembly seated in the members' gallery west, the former member for Don Mills, Mr Murad Velshi. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I'm pleased to inform members today that the Ontario government has approved $620 million in capital funding for school boards.

This funding extends our commitment to building facilities for quality education in which students can learn and grow. It continues the province's practice of committing capital funds to school boards for future years, which has been a feature of Ontario's school capital funding program since 1989. It also continues the policy of providing funds for the construction of quality child care settings in school facilities.

As minister, I have visited schools throughout the province. I have seen the contribution that first-class facilities can make to learning. I've also seen that there is in some areas a need for new or replacement schools and for renovations to improve existing schools. There's also a need to provide quality child care settings in school facilities. These are among the priorities this $620 million in funding will address.

In the two fiscal years starting 1996 and ending in fiscal year 1997-98, the funding will support 176 projects throughout Ontario. These projects include 63 new schools as well as a number of additions and renovations to existing schools and 43 child care centres and elementary schools. We are creating space for 39,605 pupils and 1,720 new child care spaces.

This funding, when combined with the local school boards' share of cost of the funding, will generate construction of a total estimated value of more than $800 million and provide an estimated 9,800 person-years of employment. I am pleased to advise the members that further portions of the $620 million in funding will be targeted to specific needs.

Starting in 1996, we will make funds available to boards to improve and update existing schools. This funding will help boards meet their obligations to maintain facilities in good repair. It will also help boards ensure that schools meet current building and fire code requirements and are energy-efficient and that facilities such as science and technology labs are up to date and able to meet the needs of students studying these important subjects.

It will also be used to improve the accessibility of schools to persons with disabilities. I am pleased that with this announcement we are able to reaffirm that making schools accessible is an important priority.

1350

Over the coming months, my ministry will work with treasury board and representatives of school boards to develop appropriate recommendations for the best way to allocate this portion of the funding. Also, from the $620 million in funding, $10.5 million a year will be designated for a separate child care centre capital fund. Capital funding for the building of 30 child care centres will be available each year through this fund. All new and replacement elementary schools will still receive funding for child care. In addition, a limited number of centres will be created in other projects, enabling us to expand the availability of quality school-based child care.

I am also pleased to announce that, in addition to the $620 million in funding, a further $35 million will be provided in the next two fiscal years to assist boards that are implementing junior kindergarten programs. This funding will help boards renovate and build additions to existing elementary schools according to their plans for the implementation of junior kindergarten. School boards will be advised of the funding for individual capital projects tomorrow and early next week.

The people of Ontario already have a substantial investment in their school buildings. There are currently more than 4,700 publicly funded school buildings in the province, with an estimated replacement value of more than $20 billion.

Since 1990 this government has committed $962 million in capital funds for schools, yet there are still many communities throughout Ontario without the kind of facilities people want for their children's education. This significant commitment of taxpayers' money to our schools is therefore an opportunity to send a message that school boards must make greater efforts to find ways to stretch capital dollars. Local partnerships and multi-use facilities can help boards deliver quality education facilities at less cost to the taxpayers.

The funding I have announced today builds upon Ontario's current capital funding program, which supports the construction and renewal of school facilities throughout the province. This program is also an important part of the government's plan for economic renewal through job creation and building infrastructure.

Most important, it reflects the government's ongoing commitment to quality educational facilities as a major investment in Ontario's future.

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): I wasn't sure what announcement the minister was going to make today -- he's been active -- because I understand that this morning he was involved in some announcements around special education. Perhaps next week we can hear about them and have an opportunity to comment. Those statements that were made earlier are important as well.

Let me say at the outset that I want to congratulate the minister on continuing what were two very key Liberal initiatives: ensuring there would be multi-year funding and making that commitment on capital, and also in beginning what has been a tremendously important program in terms of the creation of child care centres.

We don't always agree in this House on different issues, but in terms of that multi-year commitment around capital and in terms of the construction of child care centres, both of those are terribly important, for a wide variety of reasons. I want to make that point clear at the outset.

As I read over the statement, I would say to the minister that it was very skilfully put together. We get the $620 million in the first paragraph, and then it's in paragraph 4 that we start to work through the fiscal years. I've tried to use my mathematical skills, and that works out, if I understand, to $310 million in 1996-97 and $310 million, give or take, in 1997-98, which maintains roughly the level of funding that we have had. I think it's important that that be maintained.

Clearly, as you state later in your comments, there are still a number of facilities that are required; there are still problems out there. It is important to see the continuing commitment to the multi-use facilities and working with not only other ministries but other local bodies, whether municipalities through recreation, library boards and the like. That was a commitment that we made and that you have continued, and that is important.

In terms of the specific projects, you mention there will be something in the order of 63 new schools and 43 child care centres and that you will begin those announcements tomorrow. Obviously, we will await the specifics with a great deal of interest and attention.

One of the issues that is not addressed here and would not necessarily be addressed, but I think the minister will recognize as an ongoing problem, is the continuing problems faced by some of the fast-growth-area boards in providing facilities. We would look to see some of that expressed in terms of how the dollars are distributed tomorrow and next week.

I would welcome the separate child care centre capital fund. That is good as well, in terms of planning ahead and having a sense of what those dollars are. We all would like to see more dollars, but what is important, as it was important in 1989 when we made the first three-year commitment on the capital funding, was therefore letting boards know what they could expect and what the dollars are. We can always build on that, but it is important to build some kind of certainty into the system.

In terms of the specific needs that you note you're going to be targeting, clearly boards have been saying to you, as they have to us, that the improvement and updating of existing schools is becoming a greater problem. We're going to have to look carefully at that, especially in some of the older urban areas where there really are major problems. We'll look forward to what your initiatives will be on that.

Generally, while we would have liked to see this statement perhaps a couple of months ago, it maintains the direction of the previous Liberal government, and we would support that.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I wanted to comment on the basis on which the financing takes place, which is the other side of this announcement, and indicate once again to the minister our concern about what you would call loan-based financing. It isn't just our concern; the Provincial Auditor has indicated that he believes it's incorrect, the way the finances of the province are reported and the new way the government is moving to what's called loan-based financing.

We just the other day got confirmation from ministry officials that in five years the province will owe $8 billion in this new loan-based financing, that is right now moved off the books. It's shown as a loan payable to school boards and to hospitals and to municipalities. The Provincial Auditor has said it's wrong, and people should understand that we are running debt off our books and that the auditor is going to blow the whistle on this thing probably this fall, and certainly no later than a year from now.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I would like to begin addressing the issue of the capital funding announcement from the minister today by speaking to the comment from the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

It wasn't until 1988-89 -- that was probably the first year school boards were encouraged by the Liberal government not to fund capital out of current funding and to make loans and debentures that would put them into debt for ever and ever. That was the very beginning. The reason I know that is because I was chair of the London Board of Education when I first came here. The first new financing method in Ontario for capital funding was introduced by this Liberal government, which encouraged debt.

If I had any advice for the minister in this regard, I would start showing rewards in some of the transfer payments to school boards where school boards can be shown to use their funds efficiently.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): School boards always had the ability to debenture capital.

Mrs Cunningham: School boards always had the ability, but the money was flowed in that fiscal year for capital. They had the ability to borrow money but they did not have to borrow money to get that capital funding, like they did in the budget of 1989. I want to make that very clear for the member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: That's not true.

Mrs Cunningham: That was the very first time we put school boards in debt in order to get the money. If it's not true, prove it.

The minister talks about the need for replacement schools or renovations. I would like to underline the fact that I share his concern with regard to renovations, as do the school boards. In this book, called Canadian Schoolhouse in the Red, the first national study of school facilities, published by the Ontario Association of School Business Officials and sponsored by Honeywell, all provinces across the country are given some pretty important information with regard to the need for the capital renovations and new fundings for schools.

1400

In Ontario, they make two points. They say, first of all, that fiscal conditions prompted administrators to use deferred maintenance as a way to borrow from the future. Unfortunately, this practice does little to protect the public's investment in the schools' major assets, their buildings -- helped along by the former Liberal government, I might add.

"Energy: A Growing Opportunity." I think it's important to know that Ontario schools budgeted $16.9 million more for energy for the 1992-93 school year than they did in the 1991-92 school year, bringing the total energy budget to $252 million. For the minister, an important fact is that 58% of the school boards in Ontario do not have an effective energy program in place, and nearly one fourth have never audited any of their school buildings. You know we have called for audits of school buildings. Of those that have conducted energy audits, 44% have not implemented most of the recommendations.

We're looking for accountability in education, and I have to tell you right now that we already have facts and we know there isn't enough accountability in education.

With regard to the innovative school use, which I believe was started by the former minister -- or the former former minister, because this is the third minister -- Minister Boyd, $50 million was set aside in 1992 for the innovative use of school facilities. I have to ask the minister if he could provide us with the information on the status report, because we're not certain how that money has been spent and how the money actually in this budget will be spent.

With regard to multi-year funding in child care centres, I noticed that my colleague from York avoided mentioning junior kindergarten, again probably for a good reason, because these are now capital dollars the school boards will have to use. This $35 million in capital will have to be used by school boards, many of whom do not want to offer junior kindergarten but who must have it in place, as mandated by this government, in September 1994. Perhaps that's money that could have been saved and spent in other ways if community use of buildings other than schools, as well as schools, could have been put to better and more efficient use.

The money of course, as the minister says, will not even begin to flow until 1996, ending in 1998. My only observation on that, because I think of the bad management of this government and the former government, is that they won't be here when the money is being flowed.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): I believe we have agreement on all three sides for unanimous consent on Portugal Day.

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

PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): Tomorrow, June 10, the Portuguese community will celebrate the national day of Portugal and the life of Luís de Camões, Portugal's greatest poet. I'm pleased today to rise on behalf of the government to pay tribute to the men and women of Portuguese origin who have contributed so much to the growth and development of Canada and Ontario.

In 1953 the first wave of immigrants from Portugal, the Madeiras and the Azores arrived in Halifax. This migration was made possible under an agreement signed by Canada and Portugal. It was the first attempt to settle large numbers of Portuguese people in Canada. It was termed a "trial movement" because these pioneers had to prove themselves to be honest and hardworking people who had the capacity to succeed. Succeed they did. They showed that Canada could benefit by inviting more people of Portuguese origin to come and help contribute to our country's success and future.

It should also be noted that because the people who were allowed to come to Canada in the first trial movement were expected to work hard when they arrived, they had to have "hardened hands." I am pleased to say, and I think we all would be pleased to say, that immigration criteria like this no longer exist in this country.

However, I want to acknowledge that Portuguese people have worked very hard to help make Canada one of the best places to live in the world. They represent a glowing example of how important immigration is to Canada.

There are currently more than 246,000 people of Portuguese origin living in Canada; 72% of these people live in Ontario and represent the sixth-largest ethnic origin group in this province. Many are in the construction and the manufacturing businesses and many are making their mark as professionals in the fields of law, medicine and business.

There are more than 40,000 people under the age of 24. They are the future of the Portuguese community and hence the future of our community in Ontario. In this, the Year of the Family, we all have to work together to give our youth the strength and the encouragement they need to follow their dreams the way the pioneers did 41 years ago and make successful lives for themselves.

This afternoon we have the honour of having several prominent members of the Portuguese community in the Speaker's gallery. I'd like to introduce them at this time and welcome them to our gallery. I'd like to introduce to you Mr Pessanha Viegas, consul general of Portugal; Mr Ferreira, vice-consul of Portugal; Mr Manuel Carvalho, president of the Alliance of Portuguese Clubs and Associations of Ontario; Mr Almiro Fonseca, president of the Federation of Portuguese Canadian Business and Professionals; and Dr Tomas Ferreira, national president of the Canadian-Portuguese National Congress.

On behalf of the government and the people of Ontario, I wish to thank the Portuguese community as a whole for its hard work and its dedication to making Ontario a better place to live, an Ontario in which we wish to have equal rights and equality for all of our citizens and one in which we want to have freedom and justice for all.

In particular, I want to thank the Portuguese-Canadian National Congress, the Alliance of Portuguese Clubs and Associations of Ontario and the Federation of Portuguese Canadian Business and Professionals, three organizations which have provided much support and national voice for the Portuguese community in Ontario.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): These colours are flying over our city today and in fact this week in honour of a great community, the Portuguese Canadians. As already indicated, in the gallery are the consul general, Mr Viegas, and leaders of the community.

On behalf of our leader and the Liberal caucus, I'm delighted to join in and to rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event that dates back 414 years and has been celebrated as Portugal National Day since 1880.

The celebration of the national day of Portugal is special and unique in the pages of history. Unlike some dates that commemorate an important political event, such as a declaration of independence, on this historic occasion we ask the people of Ontario to join our Canadians of Portuguese heritage in the remembrance of a great, world-renowned poet and writer, Luís de Camões. Although he passed away more than 400 years ago, Camões left a living legacy of meaningful poetry of immortal beauty that has not withered with age.

We're all cognizant and appreciative of the tremendous contribution our Portuguese friends have made to the development and growth of our province and country, both in economic and cultural fields, I might add. Yet, as important as economic contributions are, the attention of Portuguese Canadian children today is focused not on the prosperity and wealth that opportunities in Canada create, but on our democratic system of government, which allows the people in our multicultural society of Ontario to celebrate a national literary hero of their forefathers' original homeland as a right.

Indeed, Luís de Camões is an intellectual giant whose footsteps have crossed centuries of time and the Atlantic Ocean to implement and plant into Canada a great heritage of love for literature, poetry and education.

1410

May this Portugal National Day inspire us to pause more often to study and admire our writers and poets. Perhaps we might recognize that a new Luís de Camões could be inspired as a result of paying tribute to the eternal de Camões whose remembrance we are honouring today.

In conclusion, I'd like to make a few remarks in Portuguese.

Remarks in Portuguese.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Today I'm pleased to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to pay tribute to the men and women of Portuguese origin who have contributed so much to the growth and development of Ontario and Canada. We welcome the consul general and the distinguished guests representing the Portuguese community in Toronto.

Tomorrow, June 10, is Portugal National Day. It is the day of Camões, on which day the life of Portugal's greatest poet, Luís de Camões, is celebrated.

The Portuguese community is a vital part of the Canadian cultural mosaic. In 1994, we mark the 41st anniversary of the first wave of Portuguese immigrants to Canada, who landed in Halifax from the mainland, the Madeiras and the Azores in 1953. These immigrants were part of the first attempt to settle large numbers of Portuguese people in Canada through the trial movements agreed to by Canada and Portugal.

The instruction manuals which were given stated, in part, "Don't forget that the future of many Portuguese who stay behind waiting for the opportunity given to you now is dependent on your honesty, your hard work and your capacity to succeed." Well, indeed, we know they did succeed.

The Portuguese community in Ontario is today a thriving, vibrant community of 350,000, with the largest concentration living in Toronto. Many of the succeeding generations since the pioneering labourers are now making their mark in the professions, business and labour, whether as doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers or business leaders.

One of the early pastors of the Portuguese Catholic church on Bathurst Street here in Toronto will honour all of Toronto by becoming Toronto's first saint. Many Portuguese festivals, including the well-attended Festa of Senor Santo Christo, provide all Ontario with an opportunity to experience the depth of Portuguese culture.

The Portuguese culture is a rich panorama of colourful interplay between human emotion and culture. Hundreds of years of historic development in Europe have been intertwined with the experiences of the Portuguese in their adopted homeland of Canada. As a society, we have been impacted in a positive way by the richness of the Portuguese community. We honour and value your contribution.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, the reports in the media this morning of problems in Ontario's health laboratories were very disturbing. It was made quite clear that there are some significant issues that have to be addressed and that there are problems that have been identified by the Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program, which is an internationally recognized program. It's a program that's been in place for 20 years. It's a program that is well recognized by doctors and, at least until recently, by your ministry.

Minister, I ask how well you feel this particular laboratory testing program is working and whether you feel, as Minister of Health, that you can give the public assurance that the laboratories of this province are operating at the highest quality standard.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to address this issue. There was certainly a story in the media today with respect to the 1993 review of activities by the Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program. The story referred to the fact that the laboratory in Kingston Psychiatric Hospital had in 1989 been indicated to be not meeting the levels of proficiency with respect to some standard tests. The laboratory has ceased to perform those tests. Under the tenure of the previous government, that action was taken. I'm certainly confident that with respect to that laboratory and to laboratories around the province, where 150 million to 200 million laboratory tests are performed each year, the people of Ontario receive testing of very high quality.

Mrs McLeod: The minister does recognize one of the particular concerns that was addressed in the 1993 report, and I would agree with her that overall the report says the majority of laboratories are providing a very fine and high-quality service. That doesn't take away from the importance of addressing any of the issues that are identified as concerns.

I would like her to further consider the example she cited, because the report very clearly indicates that there is one particular laboratory that was recommended to cease operations in 1989, and the report says that subsequent to that, "the Ministry of Health representative indicated that the lab had in fact ceased operations in those non-proficient areas," but the report goes on to say that as late as October 1993, that same lab was advertising its services in one of those areas of operation where it had supposedly stopped operating and that it was providing service to a teaching hospital.

Minister, given the contradiction and the concern that is expressed in this report, can you tell us what has happened? Did that lab close down and reopen again? What are the facts, and how can you provide the public with assurance that this lab and others where there have been concerns identified have in fact been brought up to quality standards and otherwise would not be operating?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I'm sure the honourable member is aware, the -- I never can remember the acronym -- Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program is carried out by the Ontario Medical Association on behalf of the ministry. It investigates when it finds that there may be problems in a laboratory, works with the laboratory to resolve those problems and, in a case where it decides that the problem cannot be resolved, issues a finding that the laboratory is not performing to acceptable standards.

In the example that has been cited, I am satisfied that the appropriate corrective action was taken in 1989. The laboratory is no longer performing the tests that were identified as being below standard. The laboratory does continue to operate and is performing some very specialized tests -- it is a psychiatric hospital and there are very specialized tests that are required there -- and is performing those to an appropriate level of competency.

Mrs McLeod: This report indicates a very real concern that the government is ignoring many of these problems and is not acting on the recommendations of its own review program. The report indicates that over the past two years the staff of the program have found it difficult to get meetings with ministry officials; that if there is a problem of an urgent nature, they are not able to get a meeting quickly; that in fact the joint committee between those involved in this program review and the Ministry of Health, a committee that is supposed to act on the recommendations that are brought forward through the program review, has been left without a chair for nine months and has not had a representative from the Ministry of Health for nine months.

I suggest that what's at issue here is very much a concern of public health and public safety. People have a right to know that this ministry is doing everything possible to ensure that the labs that are being used are safe, that they're being run efficiently, and given this report, people simply do not have that assurance.

Minister, what steps are you prepared to take to ensure that any concerns which are brought to the attention of your ministry are in fact acted on quickly and effectively?

Hon Mrs Grier: I can assure the member that that is indeed the case. I'm confident that we have one of the best lab testing systems in North America. The fact that we have a committee that is run by the profession, not by the ministry, to oversee the proficiency of the laboratories is I think a testament to the improvements that have been made since that committee was set up.

This is a report dated in 1994 looking back to 1993. There have been some changes within my ministry since then, and I can assure her, and in fact all members of this House, that if there are problems, our ministry is solving them, our government is solving them, and that's a change from how things operated five years ago.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: It's a matter of record. It's within the last nine months that a supposedly joint committee has been operating without a representative of the Ministry of Health or without a chair. That's the last nine months.

The Speaker: Would the leader place a second question, please.

1420

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Minister of Labour. Last December your government rammed through the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. This was an omnibus piece of legislation, which seems to be your government's preferred type of legislation because it seems to be one of the ways in which you can slip all kinds of changes in with very little scrutiny. One of the changes that slipped in last December with the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act was yet another hit at Ontario's young people.

Can you confirm that this legislation revoked the exemption from paying union dues that was previously extended to students who work for the government of Ontario?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'm not sure. I'm going to have to get back to the member on that.

Mrs McLeod: I am somewhat surprised that in a piece of legislation which this government rushed through the Legislature, the minister responsible for the legislation should not know --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): You don't even know what your policy is.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Oxford.

Mrs McLeod: -- what its impact would be on the young people of this province.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Why has it taken you a year to figure it out, then?

Mrs McLeod: The reason this comes to our attention now is because of the kind of situation that young people in this province are facing this summer.

As the Minister of Education says, why has this come to our attention now? I would remind him of the kinds of problems that he has been part of creating for young people in this province, with a 42% increase in tuition fees, with a cutback of all the student grant programs.

I would remind him that this is my question to the Minister of Labour, because my concern is with what is facing young people this summer. What is facing young people this summer is a disastrous job situation, because this government, which says it is putting as much money into job creation, is actually offering fewer hours of work to students in the name of claiming that it is offering more jobs. Now they have passed a piece of legislation which in effect cuts the salaries of those students who will get jobs with the government this summer.

Minister, I ask you, how can you justify taking money out of students' pockets to give it to unions, and how can you not know you even did that?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If they're in the union, they'll get the benefits that they're entitled to. But as I said, I'll get back to the member with an answer to her questions.

Mrs McLeod: As the minister goes to find out the accuracy of what we have reported -- and we are told that it is accurate and that students in at least some of the government's workplaces are having their union dues deducted, because that was now made possible, if not legally required, under the legislation that this minister passed -- he should think a little bit about what young people are facing: the fact that unemployment for young people is at about 30%, that the students who are graduating from high school -- last day of class is tomorrow -- are going to find there are no jobs for them, that young people today are spending months looking for a job, and that this legislation has indeed taken money out of the pockets of these young people.

I will ask you to do one small thing after you confirm the accuracy of what your legislation has done. Will you amend your legislation once again so that students working for the government for the summer are exempt from having to pay union dues?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Surely you know that you get the benefits of a union contract whether you're in the union or not, and that should be enough to satisfy the member across the way.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: I'm sure, and I hope the minister has advised his cabinet colleagues, that had they taken the kind of cuts that his ministry has taken, we would have a balanced budget in Ontario today.

Can the minister explain why the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has suffered the biggest cut in budgetary requirements, and indeed even after taking on the additional responsibility of rural affairs?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Our ministry, like other ministries, has been through a period of restraint and we have made reductions in our operating budget. Last year -- not this year but last year -- we made some very tough decisions and we had to close two agricultural colleges, which was a tough thing to do.

This year some of the former programs introduced by the Liberals which were short-term programs came to an end, because most of the programs they had introduced during their tenure were short-term programs. There was about $19 million in expenditures that ran out this year.

We have been in the process of introducing programs that are long-term programs that the farmers will have on into the future, that give them opportunities for credit at reasonable rates. We have implemented long-term programs that do not have high costs to the taxpayers and high costs to the government but do meet the needs of farmers.

Mr Villeneuve: It is obvious that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is the most important department, ministry, whatever, within the province of Ontario. On that I don't think there is any argument: The food producing and processing sector is most important.

In the Common Sense Revolution there are no cuts to agriculture -- no cuts. That's because the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario recognizes that Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is the most important of all ministries in Ontario.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): They sold you out.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Oxford.

Mr Villeneuve: Any additional cuts would effectively gut the ministry altogether because at present, with the cuts that have occurred, it can barely accommodate the bureaucracy, leave alone assist agriculture.

We want to know why this government has failed to recognize the importance of agriculture and indeed has tacked on the additional responsibility of Rural Affairs. How can this be, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Perhaps, unlike the new Reform Party across the way, we have recognized the fact that throwing money at every problem that arises is not the answer, that you have to get long-term solutions, that you have to work with groups that are in rural Ontario and other parts of the province to come together. We have both processors and farmers now working together. We have labour groups working with processors, who are also working with farmers. We have consumers who are sitting down with supply management people to work out reasonable, commonsense solutions, not the slash-and-burn approach of the new revolution on the other side.

I looked at this document. I heard this person say on TV that he was going to cut everything by 20%, except for health care, and I think everything includes Agriculture and Food. I think this particular gentleman is public enemy number one in rural Ontario and not the saviour of rural Ontario.

Mr Villeneuve: The minister and the government certainly have it wrong. It can hardly be a surprise to the minister that Ontario's food producers and processors are very worried that this government is undermining their ability to grow and progress while promoting the most important area of Ontario business: Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Bill 40, Bill 91, Bill 162 -- and I could go on -- and numerous others are all intended to make us less competitive and will make it more difficult for agriculture to grow and diversify here in Ontario.

Given that you're prepared to ram through Bill 91 under the pretence that everybody wants it -- and indeed we know that no one within agriculture wants Bill 91 -- will you prepare something positive for agriculture; ie, assistance to beginning farmers, the food and livestock diversification act? Bill 91's a total negative. Give something positive to the most important sector in Ontario.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I didn't know that the revolution over there was going to cause the spending of more money. I thought it was a 20% cut. I have a background in mathematics, and I can't quite figure out how you can cut your revenues by 30%, cut your expenditures by 20% and eliminate the deficit at the same time. That doesn't add up. The numbers don't work.

It says in this revolutionary document, item 2, "Total spending will be reduced by 20% in three years, without touching a penny of health care" It doesn't say anything about saving anything else other than health care.

I don't know where the member thinks agriculture is going to be saved. Maybe the member could win an arm-wrestling contest with his leader yesterday, or now that he's out of the hospital, but I don't think we should put any faith in the member's optimism that a Conservative Reform Party would save agriculture or put more money into agriculture.

Quite the contrary: This gentleman wants to cut the number of seats in this province by about 30 seats. That would reduce the number of representatives from rural Ontario and rural Ontario would be underrepresented in this House. This is not good for rural Ontario.

1430

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr Minister, are you aware of the fact that the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority is, en masse, appealing their municipal taxes to a provincial body and in fact winning a significant number of those cases, causing great loss for local municipalities?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I am aware that municipalities have the right, as does any other individual, to appeal taxes, and some of them are doing that. That's their business.

Mr Stockwell: Well, that was enlightening. Okay, so you are aware that people are allowed to appeal their taxes. That's good. You're the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The next question that was applicable was, are you aware that the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, en masse, are appealing their taxes, a provincially associated body appealing to another provincial quasi-judicial body to get municipal tax relief on taxes they pay to municipalities? They're winning these cases based on the fact that your government refuses to deal with a municipal tax problem they have with respect to assessment.

Do you think it's fair and reasonable that you, as an arm of this government, appeal taxes that cost municipalities much-needed revenue; appeal to a provincial board and leave municipalities out in the cold for hard-earned tax dollars that are fair and reasonable and should be applicable?

Mr Minister, I don't want another answer that you know people can appeal their taxes. You, and probably a lot of other people, know that. Do you think it's reasonable MTHA would appeal theirs en masse, causing municipalities to go without and have to make that tax dollar up from people who cannot very well afford to pay increased taxes because you won't foot your fair share?

Hon Mr Philip: I think any public body or any crown corporation or any citizens' organization should have the same right as a private developer to appeal taxes or to take any other matter before a tribunal of this province. That's the justice system in this province, that's the quasi-judicial system in this province, and if he's saying that we should have two sets of rules, one for private enterprise and the other for non-profit organizations, let him stand up in the House then and tell us what he means by that quiet revolution, because it doesn't make any more sense than this document does.

Mr Stockwell: This is a fruitful debate, I can tell. All I wanted to know, Mr Minister, was, why is it, the difference --

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Tories support MVA, that's what it says. It's on the record now. Tories support MVA.

Mr Stockwell: If you want the difference, I'll give you the difference. Private developers don't control whether or not the assessment process in Metropolitan Toronto is fair. Private developers don't control whether or not legislation is implemented to make an equitable assessment process that would have forced people to pay fair amounts.

Regardless of your position, Mr Minister, and regardless of the cackling from the Minister of Education, the bottom line is that it's not working. People are appealing their assessments, municipalities are being costed millions of dollars, and the home owners have to come up with the difference. I say to you, Mr Minister, you're winning these appeals because of your inaction on any fair review of municipal taxes in Metropolitan Toronto. If you can't understand that, then it's almost a moot point.

I put it to you, you are the minister of the crown, you control market value assessment review, you control a fair review of market value assessment, and you control the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority's ability to appeal its taxes.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question.

Mr Stockwell: You're winning on all counts and the only losers are the municipality and those people who have to make up those taxes you won't pay. Do you consider that to be fair and reasonable, and what do I tell the constituents of Metropolitan Toronto when it comes time for your government to pay its fair share and you abscond from that responsibility?

Hon Mr Philip: Maybe the honourable member would tell us his position on market value assessment. We haven't heard any of his tax reforms. It isn't spelled out in this revolutionary document, a document that would have wall-to-wall condominiums on two-acre estates throughout Niagara and put all the fruit growers out of business. That's his policy. That's his revolutionary document. That's what he would cause by this kind of thing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Philip: If he is suggesting that I as the minister should interfere -- I think that's what he is suggesting -- in the right of an organization, be it public or private, to appeal its taxes, or if he thinks that I as the minister interfere in the workings of an independent tribunal, let him say that, because that's what he's implying. I say to him that he'd be the first to be on his feet charging me with tinkering if I ever did such a thing.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In the Ontario Gazette of February 5, 1994, your ministry listed over 100 pages of corporations that were late in paying the new $50 annual NDP corporate filing fee. The Gazette states that unless the fees are paid within 90 days, the corporations would be unilaterally dissolved by your ministry.

Clearly, the 90 days has passed. Minister, will you confirm that you have set a deadline of tomorrow night by midnight to carry out this threat, and can you tell us how many corporations, both public and private, may be dissolved tomorrow at midnight for not paying your annual $50 filing tax?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Extraordinary measures have been taken over the last several months to alert all the corporations and non-profit organizations out there that, by law, they have to send in their annual filing information. Those extraordinary measures went way beyond what we were required to do. We recently sent a special courtesy letter and set up a special hotline so that people could call. There is tremendous response to that.

The goal is that nobody should lose their status over this. What we have found is that about 80% of the returns that have come back have had new information, which proves the point that we really needed to act and get these files up to date for public consumption. By now we've certainly gone, as I said, to extraordinary lengths to let people know that they do have to get this information in. My hope is that no legitimate business will lose its corporate status.

Mrs McLeod: The question was, is tomorrow night at midnight the deadline and how many corporations are going to be dissolved? After the extraordinary measures the minister has just described, which she's taken to implement this new tax, I would expect that as the deadline approaches for dissolving corporations, with all of the implications, including the implications for the volunteer trustees who serve on the boards of charitable corporations, the minister could answer the question as to how many corporations would be dissolved tomorrow night.

I remind the minister of some of the corporations we were looking at on that list that was in the Gazette in February that are potentially vulnerable tomorrow, including the University of Toronto Press, the Windsor Fire Fighters' Benefit Fund, R&R Fibreglass Services, the Rogers Automotive Supply Co. We don't know if they're still on your list, Minister, but the list covers a range of small businesses to non-profit corporations to charities.

Will you tell us how you can justify even threatening to pull the plug on hundreds of businesses and charities because they're late paying a minor tax? How does your tax do anything to help create jobs? In fact, how many jobs are you threatening with your midnight deadline tomorrow?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, losing corporate status does not mean that a company has to go out of business. It certainly does have an impact on their legal and tax advantages that come by being incorporated. We are not in any way, shape or form trying to put anybody out of business or for jobs to be lost, and as I said, we are taking and will continue to take extraordinary measures to make sure that doesn't happen.

I go back to the premise that we have a problem here in that a lot of corporations and non-profits have not been filing correct information. We are in the process of computerizing and updating all the corporate files. We need proper information for those searches that people, the public out there, do which come to thousands a year, so that they are up to date.

That's what we're doing and we expect corporations and we expect non-profits to respond to that. We have gone out of our way and will continue to do so to make sure that those who are still in business will file the information with us. The reality is, as I said, that about 80% of those have got wrong information in the files already. That should be corrected soon, and it will make the database much more accurate for the public.

1440

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, the Sewell commission wandered around this province for over two years reviewing the planning and development process. You then imposed an unrealistic deadline and demanded municipalities respond to your government's policy statement and consultation paper within 90 days. It is my understanding that you now want to send Bill 163, which you introduced on May 18, to public hearings this summer.

Your agenda clearly shows that you have little regard for the views of the municipalities, the local people. Why don't you step back from your political agenda and give the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, these organizations, appropriate time to review and respond to the numerous components of Bill 163?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The one thing all the interested parties agreed to unanimously -- there were a number of things, but one of the things they agreed to was that the Sewell commission did the most extensive consultation of any body that was ever established by any government, be it his government or the previous Liberal government or our government.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): They didn't listen to anybody.

Hon Mr Philip: AMO was quite happy. They were happy with the changes that were made in the second version of the planning commission report. They said so publicly.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): AMO's happy?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Philip: Well, they did say so. I know the policy of the Conservatives, who are constantly interrupting on this, is that they don't want any planning whatsoever. They'd rather have the developers build wherever they want and ruin the environment. That's the policy of the Conservative Party.

But AMO has agreed to serve and put four members on the implementation committee, as have our other partners, the development industry and the environment coalitions, and they're quite happy with the progress. Indeed, the question I'm getting from municipalities is, "Are you sure you're moving ahead expeditiously on this, because this will speed up the way in which we can get development going in our communities" --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Philip: -- "and the way in which we can get on with our planning process."

Mr McLean: I'm not so sure he's listening to the same people we're listening to. I think Sewell travelled the province with earplugs in, because the people are telling me that they aren't listening.

Minister, the Planning Act amendments give you the authority to pass regulations in some 14 areas, from prescribing the contents of official plans to prescribing the information and notice requirements for plans of subdivision approvals and consents. Will you make these regulations available prior to any standing committee meetings so municipalities and other interested parties will be able to adequately assess the full package?

Hon Mr Philip: We're working with AMO and with the other interested parties on the implementation and on the development of the regulations. That is the process they asked for. I don't know who he's listening to, but he obviously has no faith or is implying that AMO does not speak for the municipalities and that ROMA does not speak for the municipalities. These are democratically elected bodies. I'm listening to these democratically elected bodies, which are elected by the municipalities. They speak on behalf of their membership. I'm sorry that he isn't speaking on behalf --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): AMO is not in favour of the bill.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

COMMODITY LOAN PROGRAM

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, like many farm families in Ontario, Middlesex farm families are trying to get crops in the ground at this time of year and certainly are facing the economic problems that entails. I wonder, could you please update me and members of this House in regard to the status of the Agricultural Commodity Corp in providing lower-cost financing alternatives for these farm families?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): The member actually raises a very good question. She's talking about the Agricultural Commodity Corp, which is one of the initiatives that was taken by this government back in 1992. It was a program that was put together by farmers and for farmers with the true consultation I spoke of a few minutes ago. It formerly was known as a crop insurance-based loan.

Not everyone would know, but farmers had a difficult time in the past acquiring credit for operations in the spring. We've put together a program where if they have insurance on their crops, they can use that as collateral in order to get a loan at lower rates. By pooling their needs, which was done through the Ag Commodity Corp, farmers have been able to access that. In fact, in the first two years, over $46 million has gone out to farmers in operating credit at lower rates. Truly, it's a success story.

Mrs Mathyssen: That of course is good news. I wonder, though, are all of the farmers in my riding eligible for these loans?

Hon Mr Buchanan: All farmers who have cash crops who can take out insurance on those crops, and there's a long list of those cash crop farmers, as long as they're eligible for crop insurance. We have been expanding the program over the last couple of years to include grapes and some other programs that normally were not in, which I don't think would be grown necessarily in the member's riding. But we have expanded the program, and as long as they can buy crop insurance they will be eligible for this program, and it's an expanding program.

I might simply add in closing that $36 million is expected to go out this year to about 500 farmers. So it is a program that's working for farmers and we're very proud of that program.

INSURANCE TAX

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. My question deals with your government's new tax policy on the taxation of deductibles in insurance policies. The impact this has on individuals who suffer damage, whether to their car or to their home, is now well known, but the impact goes much further. This new policy will attack insurance policies on businesses, school boards and municipalities. I have been informed that the city of Kitchener has an average yearly payout in deductibles of about $250,000. Your new tax policy at 8% will cost them an extra $20,000. The city of Toronto has a projected $1.5-million deductible payout for 1994 which at 8% will cost the city of Toronto an extra $110,000.

What representations have you made to the Minister of Finance on the impact your government's new tax policy will have on the municipalities in this province?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The Minister of Finance indicated yesterday that he was uneasy about what was happening in this regard, that he was reviewing it. I have every faith that he will be reviewing it and I will be meeting with him. Indeed, I believe the municipalities and I have a meeting set up with him next week in which no doubt this topic will be discussed, among some other topics.

Mr Offer: It is clear by the minister's answer that he has not made any representation to the Minister of Finance. The insurance companies don't want this change. They don't need it, they don't like it and they don't like the way it's going to affect their customers, the consumers, whether they be individuals, businesses, school boards or, Minister of Municipal Affairs, municipalities.

1450

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the person primarily responsible to the municipalities in this province, why did you allow this change in tax policy and what in fact are you doing about it?

Hon Mr Philip: I'm pleased that the member is so concerned about the lot of the insurance companies. Indeed, I think that he has the right to feel sorry for many of the insurance companies. As a matter of fact, I was talking to my own insurance company today and they lowered my rates by 10% without even knowing that we were dealing with this issue.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): You don't drive any more. You have a driver.

Hon Mr Philip: I tell you, Mr Speaker, I drive, and I drive into rural Ontario a lot more then the honourable member does and I've met with a lot more municipalities than he ever did. Indeed, I've met with more health care workers than he did when he was Minister of Health.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Philip: Oh dear. The member for Etobicoke -- what is it? -- West, that direction of Etobicoke, is interjecting again.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister respond to the question, please.

Hon Mr Philip: I don't know what's got him excited. I'm sure his playground therapy group didn't go well this morning. But I'll answer the question, Mr Speaker, to the honourable member.

We are meeting with AMO. We will be discussing this. The Treasurer has expressed concern. As AMO will tell you, and you may like to speak to Mabel Dougherty, this minister, along with my predecessor, Mr Cooke, has done more to represent the views of the municipalities before the cabinet than any previous minister under the Liberal government ever did.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, you will be aware that the Ontario Trucking Association has proposed that section 116 of the Highway Traffic Act be amended so that shared shipper responsibility be introduced for axle weight violations.

The problem, as I believe you know, is that shippers are able to browbeat drivers into taking loads which exceed the limits and result in fines being placed against the shippers. They can do this by browbeating the driver and saying, "We won't use you unless you take this weight."

My question to you is, will you commit today to bring in legislative amendments before the end of this session to allow for shared responsibility?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I'm happily surprised that this question is fully commonsensical; obviously not a derivative from the manifesto. It wasn't taken as part of the book.

The onus in the past was on the driver. If she or he exceeded, surpassed a capacity, they would be asked to carry the guilt. They paid the fine, and the shipper had no responsibility. In some cases they literally washed their hands.

What our government has done is establish a reverse onus, if you wish, that if you're the owner, you're the operator, you run the shop, you are just as responsible as the driver who does the work.

We're competing for legislation. It's part of our omnibus intentions to have those housekeeping matters, but important nevertheless, be part of legislation in the not-too-distant future.

Mr Turnbull: Quite clearly, this is non-controversial legislation. The fact is, it could be very easily passed here. This is something which will benefit the Ontario trucking industry. Why on earth can't you get this legislation through before the end of this session? It can be passed very quickly. You won't have any opposition, I believe, from this side whatsoever. Surely they can allow you some time, when you see all of the silly things that you're bringing forward are non-urgent things. These are economic matters which would help the province.

I'm asking you why you're dragging your feet. You more or less said yes, you're going to bring in legislation maybe, if some time your House leader will give you time. Let me ask you, when did the House leader commit that they would give you time?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member is most conciliatory. The way to get things done around here is by way of unanimity.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Give it to Ed.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Oh, keep quiet.

It's by way of unanimity. We've got one on the hook. He says he'll come along with the government draft, with the government's intention. If we can get the Liberals, if they're able to make up their mind on any issue, then it's three of us and we can get the bill passed. We drafted the bill. We want the bill to go forward. We welcome this new partnership from the member opposite. Question mark and answer: Where are the Liberals? Thank you. I'll look forward to your support and try to entice the Liberals to be just as commonsensical as you are on this issue.

DAY CARE

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. We have heard lately of the very respected day care system in France. I remember 15 years ago as a working mother of two the difficulties and the anxieties of getting good day care. It is so important in this day and age that we have a responsible, quality, consistent system in place all across Ontario. I hope women of today do not have to face the inadequate situation that I faced.

Briefly, Minister, what steps have we taken to ensure that child care is seen, as in France, as a most important public service?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the question from the member. As the member and other members know, we have been working at a number of changes and improvements that we want to make to the child care system of the province.

While I will not say that we can see getting to the kind of system that exists in France, it is certainly something that we have looked at, quite frankly, as an ideal and something that we would see as some day moving towards. But in order for that kind of major change and shift to happen we also acknowledge that it's not the kind of thing we can do on our own as a province. That in fact is a national program, and obviously we would be quite interested in seeing the federal government involved in that kind of an initiative.

In the meantime, we have continued to try to make plans for bettering the system that we have in the province. We certainly have continued to spend a lot of additional money in the child care system, to the tune of having increased our spending since we became the government by something like 50%, from about $350 million to $560 million this year, a number of particular changes within that which, if time allowed, I'd be happy to outline.

Obviously, within all of that we continue to look at some of the funding reforms that can be made, and while we have not been able so far to move on those, again in light of the situation that we have, our own fiscal situation and the lack of funding from the federal level, that is something we are continuing to look at.

Ms Harrington: I note that one way of raising respect for the child care system is a professional recognition of early childhood educators, as this House endorsed today. Minister, I know there must be a certain amount of local control and planning to answer local needs. For instance, in Niagara Falls, my own city, there is a higher percentage of commercial operators and some are now converting to non-profit status.

Mr Minister, how will this new management framework that is being set up allow communities across this province to set up quality child care systems in every city, town and rural area in Ontario?

Hon Mr Silipo: While we continue to talk to the federal government about the issue of funding -- quite frankly, if there is some progress there, it would lead us to be able to do much more in terms of the funding reform that we are interested in pursuing -- we are also continuing our efforts to improve what exists now, particularly through the management framework approach that the member has pointed out.

This is, in effect, a process of planning at the local level through our area offices that allows the various services to be pulled together and the gaps to be identified in a way, whether it's through filling those gaps through the conversion of commercial operations or through the planning for new centres, so that it happens in a way that addresses the gaps where they exist community by community, but does it also in a way that comes out of a local plan with the community being involved in assessing the needs and assessing what more needs to be done locally.

1500

PENSION LEGISLATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. It has to do with the issue of pensions. We'll be dealing, I guess, next week with the bill that will establish the new pension plan.

As you know, Minister, there are 40,000 retirees who you will be establishing a brand-new plan for, with some very, very substantive changes in their plan. Normally, changes such as this would require the approval of the superintendent of pensions under the Pension Benefits Act. That would be the recourse that these 40,000 retirees would have to ensure that the plan met their needs and was fair to them.

I understand the bill that you're presenting, though, will legally exclude the superintendent of pensions from commenting on that and will exclude the government from the Pension Benefits Act. So the government is planning to bypass the very act that we set up to ensure that retirees and pensioners would have access to independent advice, to essentially exclude itself from the Pension Benefits Act. It's almost unprecedented, except you did the same thing with the teachers: the only two times.

My question is this: Why are you excluding the superintendent of pensions from commenting? Why are you excluding yourself from the Pension Benefits Act? Can you confirm that this is being done because it would be illegal if you did not exclude yourself from the Pension Benefits Act for the superintendent of pensions to approve your plan?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I should make two comments in response to the member opposite. It's a legitimate question he raises, except he does have a reasonably short memory in that respect. He's correct that we did that with the teachers' plan, with the approval of the teachers.

The former Liberal government made changes to the Ontario public service pension plan in 1989, he will recall, and in the process of those changes had to exempt itself from the Pension Benefits Act of the province of Ontario. It's the same process we're following this time.

More importantly, there are no changes to the OPS remaining plan in which those 40,000 pensioners are involved. The changes are associated with the actuarial-approved assets that are being moved to a new plan with OPSEU. There are no changes to the actuarially sound remaining plan until such changes are in fact negotiated with the partners involved.

Mr Phillips: We've been told in briefings that it would be illegal for you to do what you're planning to do unless you exempted yourselves from the Pension Benefits Act. In other words, you're doing things the Pension Benefits Act prohibits you from doing.

My supplementary, though, has to do with the basis on which you have arrived at the decision that you're going to reduce the contribution you're making to the pension fund from roughly 8% of salary each year to roughly 3% this coming year and next year roughly 4%, plus you're taking, I gather, a three-year holiday from making any cash payments against the unfunded liability.

I think it's important that the Legislature be aware of the basis on which you have the backup documentation to ensure that is a legitimate, actuarially sound decision. Will you commit today to release publicly the independent actuarial reports that have allowed you to reach the conclusion that you can cut your contribution from 8% of salary to 3% of salary in the next year and 4% in the following years?

Hon Mr Charlton: We have no objection to public review of those actuarial reports. Those actuarial reports, which were paid for by the government and by OPSEU in part, have been provided already to all of the other partners in the pension plan. They're the people whose money is at risk here, if the member were to be correct about risk, and those actuarial results have been provided to those people. We have no concern about a full review of what we've done by the employees whose pensions are involved.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Housing. In April the Ministry of Housing released a paper comparing non-profit housing and shelter allowances which criticized two reports prepared by Clayton Research Associates Ltd, one of the most respected firms of housing economists in this country.

The Clayton studies concluded that in both the short term and the longer term "shelter allowances are clearly a much more cost-effective means of providing housing for needy tenants than non-profit housing."

Clayton has issued a response to the ministry paper. Clayton stands by its studies and finds flaws in practically every argument the ministry uses to defend its non-profit housing policy. One of the most serious flaws is the ministry's failure to consider interest costs, which are a crucial consideration in assessing the long-term costs of the program.

Minister, your so-called discussion paper is so flawed that to promote and distribute it is to misinform the public. My question is, will you withdraw the paper and issue a statement acknowledging the critical errors it contains?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): In answer to the member's question, I can say that both I and the ministry stand by the analysis which was done of the Clayton report. It's interesting to know, and perhaps this is what is agitating the member for Mississauga South, that the analysis that was done by the ministry indicates that over the 40-year time frame the Clayton report first looked at, the indications are that, if anything, the production of non-profit housing, compared to a reasonable program of rent subsidy, is by far the better investment because one ends up, of course, with a new supply of affordable housing at very comparable cost.

Mrs Marland: This is not the first time this minister has sent out a mailing on non-profit housing that contained serious errors of fact. In January the ministry sent out a mailing to municipalities, the media and several others to "set the record straight" about non-profit housing.

But the Provincial Auditor said the materials made "factually incorrect and misleading statements." He also said the mailing "wasted tax dollars to misinform and mislead the readers." Even the Deputy Minister of Housing admitted that "some of the material in the ministry mailing was not accurate."

Sadly, the Ministry of Housing is distributing propaganda which underestimates the cost of non-profit housing while overstating its benefits.

Minister, the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, which commissioned the Clayton studies, has asked you to send your discussion paper and the Clayton studies to an independent auditor. FRPO has offered to share the costs of this audit.

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

Mrs Marland: My question is --

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, the member for Oxford. Would the member place a question.

Mrs Marland: Will you agree, Minister, to this request so Ontarians will finally know the truth about non-profit housing and shelter allowances?

Hon Ms Gigantes: First, in response to the member's statements about the mailing which the ministry undertook, which included some materials from the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, which raised questions in the mind of the Provincial Auditor, let me say that there was nothing misleading about the information that was provided in terms of the content of that information.

I think the auditor certainly felt that there might be a question about the suitability of raising questions of his capability and his role, and we have made it clear in a subsequent mailing to all the people who had the original mailing that that was by no means the intention. In fact the ministry was trying to distribute, as it does in the normal course of events, as much information of an accurate nature to all those who have an interest in the non-profit housing program as is possible. That's the object of such mailings.

Mrs Marland: Are you saying the Provincial Auditor lied?

Hon Ms Gigantes: We always treat every request from the Fair Rental Policy Organization, representing the landlords, some of them very large landlords, of Ontario with the utmost of interest. If I receive such a proposition, I'm certainly prepared to consider it.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Smash the poor people.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): It wasn't true, Margaret. You should understand what you're talking about when --

Mrs Marland: Why don't you go back to your subsidized co-op with your $100,000 income?

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South, please come to order.

1510

POLICE SERVICES

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): My question is to the Solicitor General.

I commend the actions of the federal government in resolving the native claim relating to army camp Ipperwash, located in the township of Bosanquet. Indeed I have consistently lent my support to the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point. However, the transition has not been without incident. Both the native and non-native residents are fearful of further violent confrontation and harassment.

In response to the ongoing problems related to the land claim, the township of Bosanquet, located in my riding of Lambton, forwarded a copy of the resolution passed by council on May 30, 1994, to the Solicitor General. This resolution respectfully requests: "That additional OPP officers be assigned specifically to provide police service to Bosanquet township." These officers should be in place prior to July 1 weekend to provide a visible preventive presence in Bosanquet, similar to that in Grand Bend.

Has the Solicitor General considered the request of the township of Bosanquet, and if so, how many additional OPP officers will be assigned?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): Let me begin by first of all acknowledging the concerns of the honourable member for Lambton on this issue. She has approached me on a number of occasions to ensure that I am aware of her concerns and those of local representatives. I can understand the frustration of the Ipperwash residents and I understand their apprehension and concern over the possibility of confrontation and what that might mean to them and their public safety.

The member will know that the responsibility for policing the township of Bosanquet is shared by the OPP detachments of Forest and Grand Bend.

Three things I will say on this. One is that the OPP have county-wide scheduling in Lambton county that allows them to deploy 62 constables across the area to ensure that we have officers where they're needed. Second, undercover officers continue to patrol the beach to ensure that there isn't any outbreak of violence. Third, there was a meeting on May 26, attended by a number of representatives of the local community and OPP officers, to ensure that they are aware of these matters and the plans the OPP has in place.

Mrs MacKinnon: If you are not assigning any further officers to the township, what steps are being taken to ensure the safety of the area residents?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I can assure the member that the OPP have developed plans that would allow them to deploy and respond to virtually any situation that may develop. These plans include the ability to pull together as many people as necessary. Again, because of the number of constables available from the entire area, and the fact that there is county-wide scheduling, they are able to put in contingency plans that would allow them to respond very quickly and very effectively. Third, there will be meetings with the OPP officers who are assigned to these areas so that they are (a) brought up to speed on all of the history of the issues and (b) given detailed instructions on the kind of legislation that's available to them.

In closing, let me say that I'm confident that Commissioner O'Grady and the OPP have put in place the kinds of plans that are necessary to give the honourable member the assurance she needs that her constituents' needs are being met by the Ontario Provincial Police.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a combined petition from St Peter's Roman Catholic Church in Trenton, from the Belleville Citadel of the Salvation Army and from the Church of St Michael the Archangel in Belleville, Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

"Whereas the term 'sexual orientation' is vague and undefined, leaving the door open to 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."

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly, which has been signed by people from my area around Owen Sound-Meaford.

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed this too.

CHARITABLE GAMBLING

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition with 166 signatures from about 100 households. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations granted a gaming licence to the first nation of Scugog Island to operate a permanent Monte Carlo casino on Scugog Island; and

"Whereas this decision was made without consultation with elected municipal representatives or the taxpayers of Scugog township;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Legislative Assembly not to grant a permanent gaming licence or allow the establishment of this facility."

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): A petition to the Legislative Assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed by 144 residents in my riding.

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 costs of junior kindergarten will be at least $4.5 million per year; and

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

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

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

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

I support this petition as well.

1520

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): On behalf of over 1,000 students, parents and teachers at St Boniface community school in my riding of Scarborough Centre, I'd like to present the following petition:

"We, the undersigned, petition Her Majesty's government, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, to reconsider the overcrowded facilities at St Boniface Catholic School.

"We petition the assembly to request funding for a new school. We have over 600 students in our school and half of them are accommodated in 15 portables. These portables take up our whole yard, leaving no play area. The portables fill the yard, depriving us of our two baseball fields and one soccer field. A fire route road surrounds the portables, taking up more of our yard, but it is required for the safety of our children. The washrooms are limited. The staff room seats 12, while there are 38 teachers and numerous other assisting volunteers.

"Our school board, the Metropolitan Separate School Board, has placed us high on its capital grants request list. They list us fifth" -- in fact it's sixth, Mr Speaker -- "and we ask for your support.

"We petition the government to support the need for our new school addition and ask that you allocate the necessary funds for its approval when you establish your capital grants 1994-95."

I heartily endorse this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

"We, the undersigned, members and adherents of Kingsway Baptist Church, 41 Birchview Boulevard, Etobicoke, do hereby protest the Ontario Legislature's consideration of introducing into law further legal rights for so-called same-sex couples and marriages, including their adoption of children. We believe these sanctions to be contrary to the revealed laws of God, as set forth in Holy Scripture, and as reflected by nature itself.

"We desire to share Christian love and compassion towards those persons who are homosexual in orientation and practice. None the less, we believe these practices to be immoral and wrong, as both the church and the state have held for centuries. We believe that these practices should be personally restrained and channelled into chastity, in the same way that many heterosexual persons are called to live out lives and lifestyles with regard to sexuality (that is, within the limits and parameters established by God).

"We do also protest the denigration in this way of lawful marriage bonds, believing that any further steps in the direction this new legislation proposes will only result in the increased breakdown of the family, to immorality in society, and to the further physical and spiritual harm to the lives of individuals and of our society as a whole.

"Respectfully submitted by the undersigned."

That's signed by a couple of hundred of my constituents and by me.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): The following petition expresses to the Ontario government that the congregation of the Mississauga Spanish Baptist Church has signed because they oppose the approval of the same-sex benefits bill that is being debated at Parliament. They feel this bill goes against the moral and Christian values society was built on.

"We feel that by accepting this bill you start to break up the family unit, which is the nucleus of this country. We, as residents of this country, as taxpayers, ask you to vote against the approval of this bill."

Attached is the list who are against the approval of the same-sex benefits bill, and I will sign this petition.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have received a number of petitions from my community on the subject of same-sex spousal benefits. I guess I have about equal numbers in favour of it, from the K-W Coalition for the Equality of Families, in support of same-sex spousal benefits.

GAMBLING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a number of petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that state:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there's a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976, on three occasions, voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"The government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

"Whereas every individual deserves to be treated with respect and dignity; and

"Whereas each individual has the right to be protected from unjust discrimination; and

"Whereas procreation and the rearing of children involve responsibilities and sacrifices that are assumed by the majority of heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas homosexual relationships are not and indeed cannot be conjugal relationships; and

"Whereas spousal benefits are intended primarily to help these men and women raise their families, same-sex couples do not need or qualify for support;

"We, as citizens, want the members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario to see that the traditional family be protected and fostered as the foundation of human society, as it was meant to be, and that the International Year of the Family be honoured and respected."

That's sent in by people from Lombardy, Smiths Falls, Almonte, Arnprior and Renfrew, and I affix my signature.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

Because I passionately believe in equal human rights, I have signed my name to this petition.

Interruption.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order, please. I'd like to remind the visitors in the gallery that you have to refrain from any noise, any demonstration whatsoever. Otherwise, we have no other choice than to ask you to leave.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition from the nurse practitioners in Ontario:

"Whereas Ontarians currently access one of the best primary care systems in the world; and

"Whereas family physicians are trained to provide comprehensive wellness and medical care very cost-effectively; and

"Whereas this includes diagnosing and treating disease and promoting good health, all under a single roof; and

"Whereas the government wants to allow nurse practitioners to work independently to provide your primary care, this will cost you more and will not improve your health;

"We, the undersigned, believe that the nurse practitioners should work in interdisciplinary health teams with family physicians, not independently. Another level of bureaucracy will not improve care and will cost more money."

I add my support to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 523 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, commonly known as same-sex benefits, 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 this bill would recognize homosexual couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas this bill caters solely to the demands of a vocal 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 Ontario Legislature to withdraw the same-sex bill and encourage all MPPs to vote against the bill on second and third readings."

I have signed this petition.

ANNIVERSARY OF MEMBERS' ELECTION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to draw to your attention and to the attention of the House that today, June 9, is the 17th anniversary for four members of this Legislature. The member for Hamilton Mountain, Mr Charlton, the member for Windsor-Riverside, Mr Cooke, Mr Sterling from Carleton and Mr Bradley from St Catharines have served 17 years in this Legislature. They were elected June 9, 1977. I congratulate them and I know all members do.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I don't think it's a point of order, but I think it's very fitting.

VISITORS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I'd like to bring to your attention some visitors we have in the gallery: The minister, the Honourable John Chang from the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission, and also Mr Thomas Chang, the director of the Taipei Trade Office.

1530

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the first and second reports for 1994.

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

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I want to thank my committee members for the hard work they and the staff put in to making sure that we could resolve these reports. They comprise several years' worth of work on behalf of the staff and I really do appreciate the effort of all my committee members for making sure that we could get these resolved.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HERITAGE BAPTIST COLLEGE AND HERITAGE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr60, An Act to incorporate Heritage Baptist College and Heritage Theological Seminary

TOWN OF ORANGEVILLE ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr119, An Act respecting the Town of Orangeville

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 London South was the last speaker.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I had the floor the last day and I'll keep my remarks short, because I understand the Premier will also be arriving to speak today.

When I left off, I was addressing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the cornerstone of a free and democratic society in our system of justice and how important it is that we be mindful of section 15, the equality rights section, and as we review our Human Rights Code and other legislation, we find in fact that same-sex spousal relationships are indeed created and distinguished from opposite-sex common-law relationships.

Bill 167 in fact is designed to bring the law with regard to same-sex spousal relationships into line with the rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.

In fact, this legislation has support from many different quarters. It has the support of labour, it has the support of business, it has the support of representatives of churches of many different denominations, including the Anglican Church, the United Church and indeed the Catholic Church. It has the support of many professional groups such as the social workers, and I myself have received letters from several psychotherapists.

It's indeed important that we not only affirm the right to pensions, not only the right to health and other employment benefits, but affirm the very dignity of those who are involved in same-sex spousal relationships and treat them equally before and under the law. That's what this legislation is all about.

For example, I received a letter from a resident of London North, a riding represented by a member who has declared that she is voting against this legislation. He says:

"I am a heterosexual male, middle-aged (54), and a long-time resident of London. I am married (32 years), the father of two children, a retired military officer, an engineer by occupation and a practising Roman Catholic by choice. I also strongly support the bill before the Legislature to extend family rights equivalent to those enjoyed by common-law opposite-sex couples...."

I'm not the only one who has affirmed the charter rights which should be implicit in our legislation and which call for the changes embodied in Bill 167. In fact, a letter was received by the leaders of both opposition parties, signed by 26 law professors representing law faculties from across Ontario, and each indicated in their view this bill had to be passed to finally bring equality to people in same-sex spousal relationships.

I have to take this opportunity to disassociate myself publicly from some of the intemperate remarks that I believe were made by the member for Yorkview the other day. I sat through them. I didn't have an opportunity to respond at that time. Others were on their feet perhaps faster than I was. I found those remarks distasteful. I found those remarks offensive. I recognize every member's right, as a matter of conscience, to either support or oppose this bill, but I think some of the comments made by the member for Yorkview were reflective of some of the literature that I've received which I believe comes perilously close to inciting hatred.

Just to conclude, I relied on some of the remarks made by the leader of the official opposition during the by-election in St George-St David, where she called for full equality rights, urged this government to bring forward the legislation, and vouchsafed to us that she would support the legislation once it was brought forward. No qualifications were imposed on that undertaking at that time. There was no mention of adoption, there was no mention about being uncomfortable about redefining spousal or family relationships.

Now we hear the Leader of the Opposition raising those issues. We've undertaken to present amendments at the committee stage on second reading that would answer all of those concerns, and we still do not hear from the leader of the official opposition the support she promised so many months ago.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm very pleased to rise and congratulate my colleague from London South on his fine speech. I wholeheartedly agree with what the member has said in his speech.

I too would like to get on the record and say I support this particular piece of legislation, because when it comes to human rights, you can't compromise. This whole question is about human rights and ending discrimination against a segment of our community. In a week in which we celebrated the liberation of Europe and the restoration of basic human rights on that continent 50 years ago, I believe all members of the House should get on record, get in and support human rights, because when you talk about human rights, there is no compromise.

1540

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? The member for London South, do you wish to take your two minutes?

Mr Winninger: I thank the member for Halton North for speaking in support of what I've said. I think that ultimately each member has to live with his or her decision today as a matter of conscience. I'm firm in my conviction that this is the right thing to do. It recognizes fundamental dignity and human rights.

This bill, even with the amendments that have been put forward, represents a quantum leap forward in recognizing spousal relationships involving members of the same sex in the province of Ontario. The cost is negligible. It's certainly an issue whose time has come. I know we're reaching a certain climax in these proceedings, I believe, today where each individual member will come upon his or her conscience in casting a vote.

My mind has been made up for some time. As I've read constitutional law over the years, it's become readily apparent that the courts and tribunals will change the law in a piecemeal fashion. Our calling upon this Legislature to make the necessary decision now will ensure that these laws are brought into consistency with the Charter of Rights. I believe it should have been done many years ago, at the time of the omnibus bill in 1986, but better late than never. Denmark has recognized same-sex marriages for many years. There are other jurisdictions that recognize same-sex adoptions. I don't see why Ontario should follow far behind.

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I'm the Liberal number three, the one who's rarely identified in the newspaper reports -- the other two plus Poirier.

I am proud to tell you that I will be speaking in favour of Bill 167. I have so many reasons that make me want to say why I'm for it that there's no way I could mention that in the 10 or 15 minutes I have to do it. I threw out my speech; I just kept some of the notes.

But before I read some of the reasons, I just want to read to you a letter in French, but I'll have a very brief résumé in English. I got a copy of this letter that was sent to a member who made his every intention known that he would be voting against this. I received the copy and a phone call last night from the son of the deceased person, who has asked me to read this letter into the record. I've removed all identifying traits at his request.

The first letter, for those, as I jokingly say, who don't have a linguistic pacemaker with them, says: "At the moment that you receive this letter, I died yesterday at the Ottawa General Hospital." It's from a 69-year-old heterosexual father who had a -- the son is still living, of course -- homosexual son. Here it goes:

«Monsieur le député,

«Au moment que vous recevez cette lettre, je suis maintenant décédé depuis hier à l'hôpital général d'Ottawa. J'ai toutefois demandé à mon fils, qui demeure dans votre circonscription, de prendre position sur la question du projet de loi 167 et d'envoyer une lettre en mon nom pour expliquer mon point de vue.

«C'est la première fois que j'écris à un député. Jamais auparavant, je n'ai senti le besoin de le faire. Mais cette question est trop importante pour la laisser passer sous silence.

«J'ai 69 ans et je demeure dans un petit village du comté Prescott-Russell. J'ai été élevé dans le cadre de la religion catholique et jusqu'à ma mort, rares sont les fois que je n'ai pas réussi à dire mon chapelet le soir avant de me coucher. Je vous dis cela pour vous dire que je viens de la vieille école et que je suis un citoyen bien ordinaire de la province de l'Ontario.

«La différence entre moi et bien d'autres Ontariens, c'est que j'ai un fils homosexuel. Il me l'a dit lorsqu'il avait 17 ans. Inutile de vous dire que j'en ai été bouleversé. À bien y penser, j'en ai eu honte et j'ai cherché pendant longtemps qu'est-ce que ma femme et moi avions pu faire de pas correct pour qu'une telle chose nous arrive. Comment mon fils pourrait-il être heureux sans avoir la chance d'avoir une femme et des enfants ! Je me suis rassuré en disant que ce doit être une mauvaise phase et que les choses s'arrangeraient avec le temps.

«En fait, l'orientation sexuelle de mon fils n'a pas changé mais une chose a changé. Mon fils nous a présenté plusieurs de ses amis et c'était du monde bien normal. Lorsque j'ai pris ma retraite, ma femme et moi avons fait plusieurs voyages ensemble avec mon fils et un de ses amis. J'ai eu du plaisir, cher monsieur ! Le même genre de plaisir que nous aurions eu s'il avait eu une femme !

«Il y a trois ans mon fils a rencontré un homme originaire de l'île Manitoulin. Ils sont ensemble depuis lors et vraiment heureux. Je ne vois pas, Monsieur le député, de différence entre eux et une de mes filles qui est dans une relation de conjoint de fait.

«Il semble que vous ayez des préoccupations avec la clause de l'adoption pour les couples homosexuels. Je crois fermement que ce qui compte dans la vie, c'est l'Amour.» II écrit le mot 'amour' avec un grand A. «L'Amour» -- avec un grand A -- «nécessaire pour élever des enfants n'a rien à voir avec un pénis et un vagin de la même façon que le droit de vote et l'admission des femmes dans la Chambre des communes n'a rien à voir avec les parties génitales. Je n'aurais pas peur que mon fils et son conjoint élèvent un enfant homosexuel. Ça ne se décide pas comme ça. La preuve, c'est que j'ai élevé un fils homosexuel. Croyez-vous vraiment que j'aurais voulu élever un fils qui serait soumis à toutes sortes de discrimination ?

«Si toutefois vous ne pouvez pas vous réconcilier à l'idée de cette clause, je vous prie de voter en faveur du projet de loi en deuxième lecture et faire passer un amendement qui vous satisfera avant de passer en troisième lecture.

«Je ne pourrai malheureusement pas voir à la télévision les résultats de ce projet de loi mais je continuerai à guider mon fils à partir d'ici.

«Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le député, l'expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.»

Même si je n'avais aucune autre raison de voter pour 167, cette lettre est suffisante, nettement suffisante pour faire comprendre à tous les Ontariens et à toutes les Ontariennes l'importance d'un appui à un tel projet de loi.

J'appuie ce projet de loi pour plusieurs raisons, comme je vous ai mentionné tantôt, mais laissez-moi en dire quelques-unes.

Oui, c'est une question de droit. C'est une question de principe. C'est une question de justice. Il y a un besoin évident depuis longtemps d'éliminer une discrimination systémique dans la société de l'Ontario.

D'ailleurs, plusieurs décisions de cours à différents niveaux ont tranché en faveur d'éliminer cette discrimination qui est toujours là. On a démontré suffisamment que le manque d'une loi cadre pour corriger cette anomalie va à l'encontre de l'article 15 de la Charte des droits de la personne.

D'ailleurs, j'ai suffisamment lu plusieurs opinions juridiques qui disent que tant et aussi longtemps que l'Ontario ne respectera pas l'article 15 de la Charte, nous serons dans une position où il y aura toujours de la discrimination envers les couples homosexuels.

J'ai lu plusieurs lettres de personnes qui ont vécu et qui continuent de vivre cette discrimination-là ; je vous en ai lu une tantôt. J'ai connu et je connais des personnes qui ont vécu et qui, entre autres, se sont vu refuser d'être auprès de leur partenaire à l'hôpital malade ou mourant, qui ont été repoussées après la mort de leur partenaire, qui ont été refusées accès aux funérailles ou à l'enterrement et dont les enfants élevés ensemble ont été retirés après le décès et dont les dépendants ont été laissés pour compte.

J'en ai connu, j'ai entendu, j'ai vu, et ça a été suffisant pour me motiver à dire qu'il n'est pas question qu'on ne fasse pas quelque chose pour éliminer la discrimination.

Les bénéfices envers les couples du même sexe : il y a déjà plusieurs compagnies qui offrent de tels bénéfices. J'ai lu partout, et on ne parle même pas d'un coût additionnel de 1 % sur l'ensemble de la paie des employés. D'ailleurs, la Commission des droits de la personne de l'Ontario a justement dit qu'il fallait éliminer ces problèmes de bénéfices-là avec les couples du même sexe.

Qu'on veuille l'admettre ou non, la société a changé. Il y a toujours des gens qui ont une vision traditionnelle de la société, mais il y a des personnes qui ont une autre vision de la société, une vision différente, une vision nouvelle, et ça fait partie d'être Canadien et d'être Ontarien : d'accepter ce qui est différent.

1550

D'ailleurs, dans notre langue, nous avons une expression : vive la différence. Ce qui est différent n'est pas menaçant. Ce qui est différent, c'est un enrichissement. Moi, venant d'une minorité linguistique, je sais très bien que cette différence-là n'est pas une menace à la majorité. Je n'accepte pas que des gens puissent voir qu'un couple ou un individu homosexuel, qu'ils soient gais, qu'elles soient lesbiennes, puisse être une menace à la société. Pour moi, c'est contraire à ma définition d'«égalité».

Question de relations familiales ? Je pense que, en ce qui a trait aux valeurs familiales, c'est un autre dossier, c'est une autre question. Puis, d'ailleurs, c'est contre la loi canadienne et la loi ontarienne de pratiquer une discrimination contre leur orientation sexuelle.

Les gais et les lesbiennes font une partie intégrale de notre société actuelle et ne demandent qu'à être traités avec la même dignité, le même respect et la même compréhension que tous les Canadiens et les Canadiennes aiment dire qu'ils pratiquent régulièrement. La réforme des droits de la personne a toujours été basée sur les principes de justice sociale. Plusieurs leaders de la communauté religieuse, dont plusieurs catholiques, m'ont dit leur appui et ont dit clairement leur appui à éliminer cette discrimination systématique. Ce n'est aucune menace à la famille traditionnelle.

Je dis à mes commettants et à mes commettantes, si vous croyez en la famille traditionnelle, allez-y, croyez en la famille traditionnelle. Créez-en une, une famille traditionnelle. Ayez 12, 15, 20 enfants ; allez-y. Je vais vous applaudir et je vais vous appuyer. Je suis bien content d'être l'oncle honoraire de vos enfants. Ce n'est pas parce que vous avez des voisins, de la parenté, des fils, des filles qui sont homosexuels que ça a affecté votre vision, votre vécu dans votre famille traditionnelle, absolument pas. Vous aviez cette vision traditionnelle, vous l'avez et vous avez le droit de l'avoir toujours, jusqu'à la fin de vos jours, et bravo. Mais il y en a d'autres qui n'ont pas cette même vision-là, et c'est correct également et c'est très bien.

Ma religion, telle que je la vis, m'interdit de pratiquer toute discrimination. Je n'ai qu'une seule définition d'«égalité» et ce n'est pas compliqué, croyez-moi.

J'ai reçu, comme tous mes collègues, plusieurs lettres d'appui, plusieurs lettres contre, et je dirais 45 % d'appui, 55 % contre. Ça va. Même des éditoriaux d'hebdos des petites communautés rurales de l'Ontario viennent en appui au projet de loi 167. Ce n'est pas juste dans les grandes villes de l'Ontario.

I can only regret that the bill was watered down, because we had an excellent opportunity to eliminate systemic discrimination.

Being an environmentalist, I'm used to having people point me out. Back in 1978, I built an environmental house. People laughed at me because I had R-20 insulation in the walls and R-40 in the ceiling. People laughed at me because I built a cistern. People laughed at me for many things. People laughed at me, I guess, because I got elected MPP, who knows? People laugh at me maybe because I'm still an MPP, who knows? And that's okay. I have no problems with that.

As I jokingly say, there's a pack. You can be ahead of the pack or you can be behind the pack or you can be in the pack. I'd rather be seen by the wolf ahead of the pack.

It's a question of time before Ontario society comes around. Sometimes you're penalized by some people because you're ahead of your time. I liked what Lee Iacocca said, I love that very much; trust the old fellow. "You lead, you follow or you get the hell out of the way." Well, let us lead. That's the way I see it.

People come up to me and say, "It must have been hard to make that decision to be part of a magnificent trio." No, it wasn't hard, not at all. It was one of the easiest decisions I've ever had to make, and I wish they would all have been that easy.

Why are they easy? Because I was brought up with just one definition of equality -- one; not two, not three, not four. I don't change the definition of "equality" the way I change underwear everyday, as we say in French. I got one, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as I say in my adopted second language, English: one definition.

If I care about Ontario, if I care about my community, one definition, not two -- never, never. To me this is only common sense as to righting a wrong. That's the way I see it. I'm a Capricorn. Imagine that. I'm a logical animal, and sometimes I have a hard time after 10 years in here. I've said that many times, and you've heard me. There isn't much room in politics for logic. Too bad. I was able to last 10 years. I'm here to vote for 167 today and I'm damn proud.

I guess in the future this will come along if it doesn't come today, but I would like to see it come today, and that's the way I see it. I could go on for a long time. Something tells me I went over my 10 minutes. That's okay. I feel good about this and I hope there will be sufficient members to understand, to push away the partisanry that some individuals and some parties want to do with this. I hope that people will vote for this so that we can turn the page for a large part of society, and even those like me who are heterosexual, that we can be proud to be Ontarians together.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions or comments?

M. Gilles Bisson : C'est avec un gros plaisir, mon ami Monsieur Poirier, le député de Prescott et Russell, que je me plante ici aujourd'hui dans notre langage pour vous dire félicitations, premièrement. J'étais sans aucun doute où vous vous teniez sur la question. J'ai toujours su que vous avez compris que notre responsabilité dans cette Assemblée, c'est de faire face aux problèmes de notre société, et quand il y a des discriminations, de dire que nous, comme députés, avons une responsabilité de faire sûr qu'on peut mettre fin à la discrimination.

Je vous ai écouté parler avec une certaine fierté. Je pense que ce que vous avez dit rassemble toute la pensée du monde qui comprend vraiment que ce dont on parle ici, c'est une question de discrimination, et je vous applaudis.

J'aimerais vous dire, parce que c'est possiblement une des seules chances que j'aurai de vous le dire, que je vous ai vu sur beaucoup d'autres questions, et quand ça en vient à la question de discrimination, vous avez toujours été là pour vous battre contre le monde. Vous avez compris que, dans le passé, nous autres les députés, on avait une responsabilité de nous battre contre la discrimination, aujourd'hui et dans le futur. Je vous salue, Monsieur le député.

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Rares sont les occasions d'aller au contraire de mon collègue à gauche, mais par contre, aujourd'hui je sens que j'ai la responsabilité, pendant deux minutes, non seulement de répondre à mon collègue le député de Prescott et Russell, mais d'émettre les raisons, les pour et les contre de mes commettants qui m'ont écrit, qui m'ont appelé en plus de ça, depuis les trois ou les quatre dernières années, depuis que le gouvernement NPD de M. Rae avait fait la promesse d'amener devant cette Assemblée un projet de loi qui éliminerait la discrimination envers la communauté gaie et lesbienne.

Je crois fermement que nous avons une responsabilité d'abolir toute discrimination en Ontario. Certains gens vont me penser politicien, mais je vous rappelle que j'ai été élu ici pour être politicien. Ça, c'est numéro un. Je veux voir cette discrimination-là, toute forme de discrimination disparaître, mais je déplore la façon de laquelle le gouvernement s'est pris à la onzième heure de présenter un tel projet de loi.

On parle de modifications. Les modifications ne font pas partie du projet de loi 167. Ce sont un demain. C'est après la deuxième lecture. Je dois vous dire, très honnêtement, que je n'ai pas la ferme conviction que le gouvernement --

Interjection.

M. Grandmaître : Le premier ministre m'accuse de faire de la politique. Si le premier ministre avait vraiment une conscience claire, il aurait apporté un tel projet de loi il y a quatre ans.

1600

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm very proud to participate in the response to the member for Prescott and Russell. Really, the message that you have given shows leadership and shows the personal experience of someone who has a family member who is gay. I think we have to send that message to the members of families who happen to have members who are gay or lesbian. We have to show that we have the greatest example. We have to set the highest standards for tolerance and respect in Ontario. I think that's the point, and that's the reason we're here.

I wish to congratulate you on your comments and on sending this positive message. I'm sure your children and all children who may have straight parents may be proud of your comments, and I would like to join with you in your comments. I'm proud of my children, who may happen to be gay or lesbian in the future, and I would be proud and I would like to show those comments to them in the future. As you said as well, vive la différence.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I would like to congratulate the member for a very moving and emotional speech, but I must say that I have to disagree with him on his conclusion, and I want to state the reasons why. He said: «C'est une question de droit. C'est une question de principe. C'est une question de justice.» May I add that the member for Halton North in a previous statement had said, "On a question of human rights, there is no compromise."

If that is so, I would like to raise this question: If this was a matter or a question of rights, a matter of justice, a matter of principle and a human rights issue, would the vast majority of the people of this province be opposed? Would this House be as divided as it is? Would that government have watered down the legislation as much as it has?

If it is a matter of principle, if it is a matter of justice, if it is a matter of rights and if it is an issue of human rights, then I agree there is no compromise. But since compromises have been made, I think that even the members of that government have realized or have come to see the issue as we see it on this side of the House. I refuse to accept that this province, this Legislature and this country would be as bigoted as this newest letter that I received that we are McCarthy wannabes. I reject that totally.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions or comments. Le député de Prescott et Russell a deux minutes en réponse.

M. Poirier : Oui, ça prendrait sûrement plus que deux minutes pour répondre.

Le fait demeure que je crois sincèrement que c'est une question de droits, de principes et de justice. Il y a des gens qui s'y opposent pour toute une gamme de raisons de la même façon que moi et d'autres on l'appuie pour toute une gamme de raisons.

Je n'ai pas à entretenir et à décrire la gamme de raisons de ceux et celles qui s'y opposent. Moi, je me suis concentré sur l'aspect positif de la chose, sur l'aspect des raisons pourquoi moi et d'autres nous appuyons un tel projet de loi. Je ne veux pas donner la plate-forme de ceux et celles qui s'y opposent. Ceux-ci n'auront qu'à se lever ou dire d'autres choses et nous expliquer pourquoi, pour quelles raisons, qu'elles soient politiques ou qu'elles soient autres, ils n'ont pas la même perception de ce projet de loi que moi et les autres qui l'appuient.

Thank you for your support. It doesn't often happen this way, does it?

Interjection.

Mr Poirier: That's okay. I wish it would happen more often.

I will repeat that I wish this could have been done much earlier. I say that in a non-partisan sense and I think we all agree. Having spoken many times in private with a lot of you, we all agree, late, but better than never. Now better than later, so that we can go on and try to do a lot of other things that need to be corrected in Ontario. Lord knows, the list is long.

I just tried to show that there are many positive aspects to this and that a lot of the fears that I've seen expressed in telephone calls and faxes -- and faxes and faxes -- and letters, with all due respect, I don't think are warranted whatsoever. I don't feel that. There are many positive reasons to do this, and I hope that this Legislative Assembly will do the right thing, even though it's watered down.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I rise to participate in the debate on what I think most of us expect will be the final day of consideration of this question.

I thought I would take as much time as I'm permitted to speak directly to as many members as I can, speak to them as the first minister and say to members directly that in looking at this question, I think we would all be wisest to really try to look at it in a spirit of generosity and, as much as is humanly possible, in a spirit of non-partisanship.

If you look at the evolution of society's attitude to this question, and it is an attitude that has evolved over time, it is one in which legislators have, from time to time, exercised leadership. Yes, they have exercised compromise, and I'll come to that, but they've also exercised leadership.

Back 40 or 50 years ago, relatively recent modern history, homosexuality, a homosexual act between people was a criminal act. It was forbidden by the law and there were a great many people who lived in fear of persecution, in fear of prosecution. The debate took place in a number of countries: in Canada, in Britain, in the United States, in a number of countries.

In Britain, the report that stands out as the beginning of enlightenment on this question was the Wolfenden report. In that report, the royal commissioner pointed out to the British public that it really was incredibly unfair and harsh for the state to attempt to impose one version of private morality on an entire society and on people's private, consenting acts.

1610

Of course there was a major debate, and of course many of the features of the debate that we are hearing today were heard at that time: that homosexuality in and of itself is immoral, that there is no way in which the law could possibly countenance or recognize or permit homosexual activity between consenting adults.

That view, if I may say so, with great respect to the people who have continued to express that strong point of view, has been rejected by every Legislature in the western world. There is now no Legislature in the western world which accepts the notion that somehow the law should seek to impose a particular sexual morality on an entire society. There is no modern Legislature which would contemplate doing that. When Mr Trudeau, as Minister of Justice, introduced the changes to the Criminal Code in 1967, he brought the Canadian Criminal Code in line with the changes which were then under way in every other jurisdiction.

It's important that we reflect for a moment on the pain and suffering and hardship which the kind of discrimination, not only in the law but in terms of social attitudes, has caused to thousands and thousands of people, many distinguished people. I've just finished reading a biography of John Maynard Keynes, and he was a homosexual. In this book it describes how he was afraid that his landlady -- this is when he was a senior adviser to the Treasurer -- was going to denounce him to the government. I don't have to, for the benefit of members, go through the field of art and science, of music, of law, of literature, of business, of police, of this Legislature, of everywhere else --

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): That's not what we're talking about.

Hon Mr Rae: I hope the honourable member will allow me to complete a few thoughts today.

We have to reflect on what that has meant. The evolution of the law has been extremely important.

The law has evolved as well in term of this province. I can reflect, and I think members will join me in this common understanding, that during the 1970s the question then became that as the Criminal Code was being changed, it was then the next step that the Human Rights Code would be changed so that sexual orientation could not be the grounds for discrimination. This Legislature went through a period of discussion during the Conservative minority government when there was some suggestion that some changes like that might be made, and they were not successful.

I can recall the election of 1981, in which that issue had been raised and in which there had been some question as to how it would be supported and how it could be done. I can remember getting, in that election, people at the doorstep saying they were opposed to that idea, that they didn't feel it was the right thing to do, and I can remember people feeling very strongly that it's something they felt it was time to happen.

When the government changed in 1985, the Attorney General of the day, Mr Scott, brought forward amendments to the Human Rights Code which did not include any changes with respect to sexual orientation. The bill went to committee. The member for Ottawa Centre moved amendments, some of which were accepted, which led to changes, which were debated in this House in 1986. We had support from all three parties, very modest support from one party, but we had support from the other two parties for the change, which meant that sexual orientation could no longer be the grounds for discrimination with respect to employment.

I can remember that debate. I spoke in it, Mr Peterson spoke in it, Mr Scott, a number of members spoke very strongly in it, and it was, like this debate today, one of considerable emotion.

I can remember that in my remarks at that time I focused a lot on the issue of privacy and said that really the logical next step, in terms of the positions that were taken with respect to the Criminal Code, was for us to recognize that people had a right and have a right to a private life. They have a right to be themselves. They have a right to be who they are, without shame, without fear, with acceptance.

I feel that even more strongly today than I have ever felt it. But I feel as well that, in a sense, our society has evolved from the point that we're not only saying, "Yes, you have a right to be private, but for goodness' sake keep it private," but to the point now where surely we can say: "Look, there are gay people and lesbian people in our society. They have a right to be who they are. They have a right to their own lives. They have a right to their own partnerships. They have a right to choose who they will love and who they will live with."

It's interesting when you go down the list of employers that now recognize this concept of a benefit being paid on the basis of one's domestic partner being whomever one chooses as one's domestic partner. Sometimes, when I hear the kind of reaction I'm getting from some members because of something they're afraid of, or some force they're afraid of, I wonder. They say, "You guys are way out somewhere on some fringe and we're with the great majority." I don't happen to feel that's true. I really don't feel that's true. The folks who are opposed to this, if they're opposing it for political reasons rather than for reasons of real conscience that they can't accept it, are riding the wrong wave.

Let me just list the companies: Alfred D'Allaire, Blue Cross, the city of Ottawa, the city of Kanata, the city of Kitchener, the city of Toronto, Dow Chemical, the Globe and Mail, the government of Ontario, the Hamilton Spectator, Harbourfront Centre, Hudson's Bay Co, the Law Society of Upper Canada, Levi Strauss, London Life Insurance, the London Board of Education, Lotus Corp, McGill University, Metropolitan Toronto, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, National Grocers, North American Life Assurance, the North York Board of Education, Northern Telecom, Ontario Hydro, Oracle Corp, the regional municipality of Waterloo, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, the Royal Bank, Ryerson Polytechnic, Sears, Southam Publishing, Stentor Resource Centre, the Toronto Board of Education, Toronto Hospital postgraduates, Toronto Hydro, Toronto Public Library, the Toronto Sun --

Laughter.

Hon Mr Rae: It's true -- the United Church of Canada, the University of Toronto, Warner Brothers, the Wellesley Hospital, the YMCA and the YWCA, and York county hospitals. That's just a list which has been provided to me.

These are not radical organizations. When the Royal Bank, Sears, Ryerson Polytechnic University, the Wellesley Hospital and London Life Insurance can all agree that it's time to move ahead, who are we as a Legislature to fall behind?

In fact, it's worth pointing out that just over a year ago, the Attorney General and I received a letter from the leader of the official opposition. I want to read this letter out simply as a way of saying that --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: Apparently the leaders of the Liberal Party don't want to me to read out a letter which was written by the leader of the official opposition.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): This is disgraceful, Bob, disgraceful. For a Premier of this province you are disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret Harrington): Will the member for Brampton North come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member from Brampton is saying that it's disgraceful for me to read a letter from the leader of the Liberal Party, the leader of his party. I would just say to you that at one time the leader of the Liberal Party said to me in a letter -- I don't want to inflame the honourable member any more than I already have, because apparently I'm not allowed to read out a letter from his leader.

1620

I will simply say, for purposes of this discussion, that when I am told, for example, that our government has broken a number of promises to the gay and lesbian community, that we have refused to extend same-sex spousal benefits to private sector workers and that, "If you will agree to bring legislation forward immediately, I will do everything possible to facilitate passage," when she says, "It's evident to me that our courts and tribunals are recognizing that same-sex couples have entitlements to family and survivor benefits and are moving in this direction. I'm calling on you to heed this direction and take action now to recognize the rights of same-sex couples," I can only say that I believe at that time that was part of a general reflective mood, and I believe that's what the honourable member believes. I tell the honourable member and I tell members opposite, that's what I believe too.

I would say to members, let us look at this issue not as one in which we say: "That was then and this is now. Now we won't do anything about it because it's not an issue, or we don't like the way the government has done it, we don't even like the way the government has brought in its determination to bring in amendments." I say very directly to members, particularly to members of the Liberal Party whom I've heard saying in the press -- and I heard the member for Ottawa East make the same point again, so I know it's part of a concerted approach that's being taken -- "The reason we can't support the bill now is that we don't trust the government," I say to them we have made a commitment. It's very clear. It's very specific. The motions are prepared in terms of what we will do. They're all ready. They've been circulated. I say directly to members opposite that if on third reading the bill does not approximate or does not lead to what it is they want, then by all means defeat it at third reading. But don't extinguish it now. Give it a chance to go to committee. Give the committee a chance to hear the amendments we've indicated. Do not extinguish it right now.

I say to members, we have listened. You said you had to have a free vote; I called a free vote. You're going to see how free it is on our side. It's a free vote. I don't mind saying to my colleagues that internally, yes, there have been emotional debates, we've had emotional debates and emotional discussions, and it was clear to me at a certain point in the discussion over the last 10 days that we were not going to be successful if we simply moved ahead with the bill in the form in which it was presented. The Attorney General reached the same conclusion herself on the basis of what she was hearing, what we were all hearing.

This has been an extraordinary debate for the province. I happen to think it's been a healthy debate for the province. I happen to think it's one which is going to advance the understanding and the sense of tolerance in our society -- not easily, but I believe that at the end of the day that is what is taking place and that is what will happen.

It's often said that in politics you're not supposed to say, "We couldn't get that thing through so now we'll have to do something else." I admit that when you call the kind of free vote and the kind of free debate we've had, people knowing where I stand -- and I think that's very clear to everyone here, my own view as to how we have evolved as a province and how we have to accept the fact that precisely because there are enduring partnerships between gay and lesbian people, those partnerships are entitled to equality before the law, those partnerships are entitled to a sense of respect before the law.

I happen to believe that the courts will find their way to that conclusion, but I also happen to believe that it isn't right, even with the charter, for legislators to back off and say, "Oh, we'll let the courts decide that. That's too difficult an issue, that's too hot a topic, that's too difficult a topic." I think we have to face up to it, I think we have to deal with it, and I believe that's what this bill, as amended, will do.

I would say to members and I would say to everyone present here that we have made the very clear commitment to the people of this province that we would move in a way which reflects the evolution of our society and the evolution of Ontario.

As I travel around the province, of course I hear different views on this subject. I hear from some who say to me they don't want the law to even countenance the very idea of homosexual partnerships, of gay and lesbian partnerships. They can't accept the notion that the law should do that, to which I can only reply, in a secular society such as ours and in a diverse society such as ours and in a society such as ours which reflects different values, different traditions, different people, people who live differently, it is only right and fair that the law should reflect them as well.

When I spoke on the constitutional debate, I often said that the first freedom, the first right that people have, is the right to be themselves. It's to see in the Constitution, in the legal structure of their country -- it's to be able to look in that mirror and see themselves and know that the constitutional mirror of Canada and of Ontario doesn't exclude them. It includes them. It gives them a place.

It means that they're people here too, that they're not going to disappear or evaporate or be continually embarrassed or live in shame or fear by virtue of who and what they are. That's not a reasonable perspective. It's not, in my view, a balanced, tolerant way in which we're going to build a generous society.

Then I had people say to me: "It's the wrong time to do this. It's not the right time to do this. There must be a better time." Well, I suppose there might have been a better time than 1990 to be asked to form a government. There are lots of times when you say to yourself that life would be easier or better if you didn't confront a difficult situation, because let there be no question: This is an issue on which there are emotions that are strongly expressed and strongly felt.

But let me also say that you can't really avoid issues when the courts are raising them, when the Human Rights Commission is dealing with them, and when we have the simple, fundamental fact that the gay and lesbian people of this province are here and they are saying very clearly to the rest of us: "Include us in. We're not challenging the nature of legal authority in our society. We're not challenging the nature of the modern family. We're not seeking to cause a total revolution in the way in which people live. All we're asking is that people recognize that we live on your streets, we live in your apartment buildings, we own houses, we pay taxes, we contribute to society, and we work at every level of our society." There isn't a branch or part of this province where gay and lesbian people aren't working and living and being themselves.

I suppose there was a time when the Premier of this province would never say those words for fear of being struck by lightning, but I'll say it again: Gay and lesbian people are with us and part of our community, and I say, as Premier of the province, you have a right to be part of this community and you have a right to be included in the way in which we draft and build the legal structure and the social structure of this province. That's your right.

Je ne peux rien ajouter aux paroles de mon ami le député de Prescott et Russell. Je crois que la lettre qu'il a lue reflète une réalité que j'ai vue moi-même dans beaucoup, beaucoup de communautés : des gens qu'on pense être très, très conservateurs à ce sujet à cause de leurs valeurs personnelles ou à cause de leurs expériences comme génération, et dans beaucoup de situations ces gens ont dû répondre à leur situation familiale, qu'ils ont une soeur ou un fils ou une fille qui dit, à l'âge de 17 ou 18 ans, «Papa, je suis homosexuel.» D'abord, ça cause une réponse d'émotion profonde, mais on voit beaucoup plus souvent le triomphe du coeur humain ; c'est ça qui triomphe dans les familles que nous voyons.

I've seen the member for Prescott-Russell, whom I obviously listened very carefully to, and he spoke so wonderfully -- and I think the letter that he read has got to be one of the most moving expressions of human emotion that I've heard read in the Legislature. I think the situation that he described is one that all of us can relate to, where people who perhaps before this experience had never before thought they would be faced with this kind of choice -- parents, who have very strong views and who have a very clear-cut sense of what should be and what should not be -- are confronted with the fact that a child, a sister, a brother says, and has said in the last 20 and 30 years, that they are homosexual, gay or lesbian.

1630

There's been a dramatic change in our society in the last 20 or 30 years. For a whole period of time, for a whole generation, for decades and decades, this was not an admission one could make, even to oneself, let alone to one's loved one. But we've changed, and families have changed and parents have changed, because they've had to change, because they're faced with the choice of either refusing to recognize that human reality or understanding that love can take different forms and can express itself in different ways.

That's what we now confront. We have an opportunity, I believe, to right some wrongs. I would repeat very directly to the members of the House my sense that the province is ready for this kind of recognition, that the private sector is already giving this kind of recognition and that it diminishes us a little if we show ourselves unprepared to make the same kind of recognition.

I want to say to all of my colleagues that whatever happens, it is crucial for us to remember the need to build a more tolerant and a more caring province, and to simply make the observation, based on my political experience -- and this is a political question. We offer a compromise because we believe that politically it's better to get something and move the yardsticks ahead than not to. Simply put, that's my view, as a politician. I know there are some who would refuse even to describe themselves as politicians, but that happens to be what I've been doing for the last 15 years and I think that for us to move ahead a bit is better than not to move ahead at all.

But I would say to the House and I would say to the province that the message that I'm getting from the gay and lesbian community, as well as from a great many other people, is that however politically inconvenient it may be, and however some people might prefer to say, "This is a hot issue. For goodness' sake, put that one on the back burner, or on another burner or, preferably, take into another room altogether," it won't go away. It's not going to happen, and I'll tell you why it's not going to happen: because gay and lesbian people are here. They're here among us. That's a reality that we have to come to terms with, all of us personally, in our own attitudes, in the views that we respect, that we repeat, in the statements that we make, in the jokes that we tell.

But it's also something that's going to be reflected in our laws. The courts and human rights tribunals will move us in that direction. Legislatures around the world are moving in that direction. Sweden and Norway, California, Hawaii, the European Parliament, the drive, the move is inexorable.

So in my view, and what I would say strongly to my colleagues in all parties, it is time. It's time for us to make the move. It's time for us to be inclusive. It's time for us to respond to the simple quest for equality and to the simple demand for human justice. It's time, and I will certainly be standing in my place to express my strong support for the approach that the Attorney General has taken and for our commitment as a government to moving ahead on behalf of the people of the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for his contribution. Now we have time for questions or comments.

Mr Callahan: I think if the Premier checks my record on the voting on Bill 7, he'll understand that I understand the concerns of gays and lesbians. I was influenced to vote on that bill because a mother called me up and said: "My daughter's a lesbian. What do I do, Mr Callahan?"

But the bill that you've presented, and the Attorney General is responsible for this, went far beyond whatever Ontarians would accept. You now try to repatriate that by amendments. You tell us the amendments will be put in after second reading. Well, I'll tell you, I've chaired a lot of committees around this Legislature and you're playing smoke and mirrors with those poor souls, those poor human beings, because the amendments you're suggesting, Madam Attorney General and Mr Premier, would be ruled by any Chairman who knew anything about this place to be out of order, because they totally gut the principle of the bill.

If that's the smoke-and-mirrors politics you want to join with the Conservatives in playing, in dealing with human lives of people who care and are expecting your government to do something, Mr Premier, I find that abominable. This Legislature is being used for political purposes and I object to that.

Interjections.

Mr Callahan: Well, you look at my record, why I voted for Bill 7. I voted for Bill 7 because I cared about those people. You people have brought in a bill, you can't get it through the House, you're going to water it down, you want to talk about it as, "We can't do it, so here's what we're going to do."

I suggest to you, Mr Premier, this is probably the darkest day in the history of this province in terms of politics in this House. You've spoken about human rights. It's not human rights. You don't understand the bill. You brought in a bill that was far more than anything that could possibly be sanctioned by this province, and you have in fact left these people out in the cold. You're going to say to them on election day, as will Mr Harris, the leader of the third party, but you'll do it in a different way; you'll say, "We tried and we couldn't accomplish it." Well, I say shame, Mr Premier. Shame.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I listened very carefully to the remarks of the Premier and I was reminded that whenever we're confronted by our prejudices and our hatreds, we invariably hide behind excuses for those prejudices and hatreds, because it makes it easier for us to feel a little more comfortable when it comes to looking at the people who are adversely affected by those prejudices.

1640

I'd like to remind people here that for those who said we couldn't have pay equity so that women could earn salaries and wages that reflected their skills and experience because, of course, the economy wasn't strong enough, it wouldn't support it, they hid behind that excuse. When it came to employment equity, well, the excuse there was the myth that everyone had access to employment and jobs. Of course, there was the recent Sun cartoon that reinforced the myth that women are raped because of their appearance, and that paper hid behind the excuse that it was a matter of freedom of the press. Now there are those who would deny equal rights to gays and lesbians and hide behind moral indignation.

I'd like to remind the members of the House that the prayer that is recited here every sitting day calls upon us to ensure an Ontario "where freedom rules and justice prevails." I think we should stop hiding and making excuses and vote for Bill 167, because it's time Ontario did indeed become a province where there is freedom and justice for every citizen.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I listened very attentively to the remarks of the Premier and I must say for the record that I think it was as thorough and honest an assessment of the realities of equality seekers in Ontario as he has delivered or anyone has delivered in Ontario in quite some time.

Yet later this afternoon I will be voting against Bill 167, and I will be doing it with a tremendous degree of regret. I simply want to say to the Premier that while I could endorse virtually every single comment that he made in his speech, the reason this bill will fail ought to be focused at least in part on the way in which the government has managed this issue.

Ever since the very eloquent letter from my leader went to the Premier, I had believed that there was an opportunity for this Parliament to come to a consensus on moving the yardsticks on this issue. I simply say to the Premier that on this very volatile issue his management skills have not been what I would have expected. It goes right down to the comments of the Attorney General yesterday after presenting her amendments, when she added that the changes announced yesterday have removed any justification for MPPs to vote against this bill, "If they do, it will be a clear indication that they are voting purely on the basis of fear and homophobia." I want to say publicly to the Attorney General and to the Premier that it is that kind of characterization in this debate that has a great deal to do with the fact that this bill will not pass today.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I listened very carefully. I guess I'm responding to the Premier here but to a certain extent we respond to each other. I think the Premier put things in perspective in a way that we needed to today. I understand what the honourable member who just spoke is saying, but I want to try to put something in perspective here.

When I raised your leader's, the Liberal leader's, letter, I said in this House before, and I say it again, I have not been playing politics with this issue and I think everybody here knows that. My goal has been to try to get this bill passed, and I'd be the first one to admit that perhaps we could have done it differently, that perhaps we could have done it better. It has been, as the Premier said, a difficult issue for all of us for many reasons, but I would say that today is our opportunity.

Let me tell you that when the Liberal leader wrote that letter, and I'm raising it in this context, I believed her and I rejoiced, because we didn't have all the support in this caucus that we needed. When I saw that letter, all I could think of was: "The Liberals have promised their support. We have got more support on the other side of the House."

I rejoiced and I believed that letter, and so we moved ahead without all the votes and all the necessary support on this side, thinking, and from my heart believing, that there was a positive response from over there.

So what I am asking today, genuinely from my heart, because this is the day we're going to make a big choice, is that people will put aside partisan politics, will put aside the sentiments that it should have been done this way or that way, and realize that today is our chance to put all that aside and take the opportunity to seize this and support the bill.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable members that I haven't given up my hope that they will try to listen to what I'm saying, and I'm saying it to them directly.

First of all, with respect to the member for Brampton South, we have obviously discussed the amendments with the Clerk's office and we've been advised that they are in order. We wouldn't be doing this after all the debate that's taken place -- I mean, it really sort of defies credulity to believe that the government would be doing this for any other reason.

You can say, "Look, you could have managed it better," but the question here is one of you have an open debate and you listen to the debate. What were the key issues raised in the debate? Adoption and dealing with the question of "marital status" and "spouse," and saying, "Can you do it a different way?" We came to the conclusion that we could and that we should, and that in order to get the bill through and to deal with it, we do it in that way.

I would say directly to members, first of all, that the argument that was made by the member for Brampton South that somehow what we're doing is not in order is just not true. It just isn't true. He should know that. It just isn't the case.

I would say this directly to my good friend for York Centre: I've seen different views of his reported, in both the Italian and the English media, with respect to his views of what the law should and should not do, so I'm interested in hearing him say that he is of a certain view. I would say to him and I would plead with him, if that is really his position -- and I believe it is, because I believe that he comes into the House and says that's what he could support -- if that's the position that's being put forward by some of them, I would say to him, with great respect, let it go to committee, and then if what you see at third reading does not comply with what it is you think should be there, vote against it. That's perfectly okay. No one would criticize you. I would be the last to criticize you.

We have a chance to do it, so let this bill go to committee, let it be heard and let it be voted up or down on third reading. That's the better way for us to proceed with it.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): A few weeks ago on May 19, I stood in my place and voted yes on first reading. Quite frankly, it was one of the more difficult votes I've cast since I was first elected in September 1987. I can only say that since that time I have had perhaps the least pleasant number of weeks of my political career in many respects, but in many other respects perhaps a re-examination of why I'm here, what this place is all about, and not trying to sound too lofty, a sense about some principles of this place and the process that we engage in in terms of discussion, and hopefully, as the Premier said, an honest and open and complete healthy debate.

I read with some interest an editorial in one of the papers today that said it was more or less extraordinary that a full and complete debate had actually exchanged opposing views that may result in some change of opinion, some movement, if you will, from people's point of view, that it was not the norm in this place.

When I voted yes on May 19, I took a lot of heat from a lot of different quarters. I want, at the outset, to thank those of my colleagues who understood why I did that for their support and their encouragement. Some are in the third party, and they know who they are and I want to thank them particularly, and some of my own caucus as well provided me with some considerable encouragement, many of them not even knowing some of the difficulty, if I can use that word, that I was running into with some of my friends and indeed colleagues here and people in my community.

1650

One of my colleagues, it matters not which party he or she represents, indicated to me that we weren't paid enough money to go back to the constituents and explain the process. I had an editorial in my local paper say that maybe they understood why I did what I did, but politics was already too confusing and it was ill-advised of me to do something that might confuse people in terms of the process.

I voted yes for first reading because I believe that debate is essential and a fundamental part of this process we call democracy. I find it difficult personally -- and I make no judgement. I understand why people voted no on first reading; they understood the essence of the bill, they felt they knew ahead of time what was there and felt in conscience they had to vote against it.

It seems to me, however, that whatever one's point of view is, whatever she or he may have as their point of view and conviction, one of the privileges and indeed responsibilities we have in this place is to stand and indicate why we believe what we believe.

If this were to be my last speech, and I might even say significant speech -- I don't know if it will be or not -- in this place -- I don't know what the future holds. I don't know if I'll be returned whenever the Premier decides to have an election. But if this were to be the last opportunity I have to speak in this place, I would want to make a couple of points and one of them is this: I have endeavoured to represent the people of my community. In so doing, one of the aspects of that requires that I communicate and dialogue with them.

Over the past few weeks, I have received in excess of 100 phone calls virtually every day, countless letters, countless faxes, indicating points of view on Bill 167, some in favour, I say very candidly, the majority opposed. I might say to some of those who called and expressed their displeasure with 167 or their opposition to it that I take some exception to the manner in which the message was communicated. There are people who, I am sure, in their hearts believe that they're doing the right thing. I would ask them to consider how they're trying to communicate the message.

I think all of us are ultimately a product of a variety of ingredients. We're a product of our environment and the value system we have been taught. We are part of things that we fundamentally believe in terms of our various faiths or lack thereof, and I have to say that I am a product of an upbringing that has presented a value system that, quite frankly, I haven't lived up to in most respects. But at the end of the day, I believe there is an empirical, fundamental value system that I happen to believe in and that I have to adopt as foundational for the decisions I make, and a value system which ultimately becomes an expression of who and what I am. I can't isolate that here in this place or in my home or in my community or in my recreation. I am what I am, and that's a product of everything, including the value system I have.

I believe that one of the things we all share in this place is a high desire for tolerance and understanding. Sometimes we confuse the logic that says that tolerance is part and parcel and necessarily a part of a full endorsation of an alternative value system. I say very, very clearly that I have no difficulty in presenting a point of view, from a logical point of view, that says that tolerance is not exclusive of non-acceptance of a particular value system.

I indicated that if this were to be my last speech in the House, I would want to say that I have tried to do the best job I can in terms of representing my community and at the same time sometimes providing leadership. The Premier said that leadership is stepping out in front. Yes, it is. Sometimes leadership also includes standing -- nobody is ever alone, but standing here sometimes feels like you're alone, when you believe in something. That's part of leadership too, and many of my colleagues are going to do that today. Even though they've heard from their constituents that they don't want them to vote in favour, some are going to vote in favour.

I voted yes on first reading because I wanted to have an opportunity to dialogue on this issue, as I did not believe it would go away. I did not believe that by seeing it defeated on first reading, the type of discussion and the atmosphere in which tolerance could be advanced, sensitivity to those of the lesbian and gay community -- who, as the Premier said, live among us, some in our families -- could be advanced, in an atmosphere where we didn't have an open and full and complete debate.

I confess that I don't have any particular wisdom or particular insight that is new to bring to this place today. As some of my colleagues would know, I have been away, some distance away from this place, and I've read and followed with interest the debate that has taken place. I appreciate the comments of many of my colleagues. I disagree with many of you, but I appreciate what you have to say and why you're saying it and where you're coming from.

I said I would do the best to represent and provide leadership in my community. I indicated after first reading that unless there was something particularly different or unusual in the bill from what I anticipated, I would in all probability be voting against it on second reading. But I felt the bill deserved and I needed the opportunity to at least look at it and consider it in its entirety.

That has been done. That has been done with a great deal of emotion and a great deal of pain, I suspect, by a number of people.

Notwithstanding the fact that the government has made a commitment to bring in amendments, today I'm voting on Bill 167 as it is written, and as it is written, my particular point of view, my value system, who and what I am, the representation of my community, compel me to vote against it.

I began a train of thought a moment ago that I lost, and that was to those who have called my office and written, many of whom I suppose I identified with and in some respects still do identify with. I hate using terminologies that categorize people, but many from the evangelical community have sought to engage themselves in this debate in a way that I think does not lend support to the message they seek to bring to this debate and the message they seek to communicate to those of us who have the privilege of serving in this place, representing the people of this province and to some degree shaping the direction and the future and the legal framework within which we live in this province.

I hesitated. I thought about this. I took a long walk last night and wondered whether I would mention this, but, perhaps contrary to my better judgement, I will. A very significant leader of this country, who just a short while ago retired from national public office, said to me and one of my federal colleagues at one time, "You know, if the evangelical community is upset, we must be doing the right thing." It was a taunt to me, in a sense, and to my colleague, but I understand where he was coming from.

I would like to take this opportunity, without being presumptuous, to invite those of conviction, from whatever faith, those in the evangelical community and other faiths, to become part of the process, to sit at the table, so to speak, and get involved in political life on an ongoing basis in this province; to put into our communities the values they so strongly and so passionately believe; not to react, not to be there after the fact, but to participate on an ongoing basis.

1700

It's an invitation that I say is perhaps presumptuous coming from me, but it seems to me that the role of those who share certain beliefs is to be involved on a day-to-day basis, to be in the marketplace, as it were, to be participating, to be interacting with people and not to react all the time after the fact. Quite frankly, that has been my experience since I have been elected over some six and a half years, that there is often a reaction to what takes place and not a participation up front in an ongoing process.

If one thing comes out of this, and there will be many things that come out of the debate on Bill 167, for me it would be an invitation for those who hold differing points of view to actively become involved in the process that we call politics. From time to time in this place people say, "You're playing politics." Well, that's what we're involved in. That's what democracy is about. It's about exchanging ideas. It's about sometimes passionate, heartfelt debate. I hope it's not in the future so much about reaction. I hope it's not so much about one interest group opposed to another interest group, but rather interest groups coming together and sorting out ideas, trying to build, trying to understand and trying to inject into our society the values that so many people feel have been eroded, whatever those values may be.

We have in many respects become a society and a democracy, a process, that responds to interest groups. I would hope we would begin to move away from that in many respects, that we'd become more inclusive in how we operate in this place and how we proceed with the legislative agenda. Accordingly, at the risk of being somewhat presumptuous, I would invite people to do that.

If politics is somewhat confusing, as some of my friends wrote in the editorial in my community paper, well, so be it. I suppose it is confusing. It's confusing for many of us who are here. But I believed on May 19 that in order for this issue, not to be resolved, because it is not resolved regardless of how the vote goes this afternoon, but for this issue to be dealt with, we needed to engage in this debate in this place. There has been, in point of fact, the debate that has taken place in the broader community. It has been, from time to time, taking place by picking out a line or a paragraph from a letter here or a paragraph from a letter there, or a phrase from a speech given in some place by some member and extrapolated to represent a whole point of view, to perhaps say that somebody doesn't support or does support a particular point of view.

When all is said and done, we have here an opportunity to fulfil our responsibilities. I am in many respects a simple person. I don't profess to have any particular great intelligence or the debating skills of some of my colleagues on this side of the House or the Premier, who just presented an outstanding presentation for the past half-hour or so. I am simply a person trying to do the best job I can. I work hard at my job. My job is both work and a privilege, a privilege that has with it significant responsibility. I seek to discharge my responsibility today by voting against Bill 167 as it's written, because quite frankly I personally don't feel comfortable with it based on who and what I am and the value system that I feel should be, although it not always is, the benchmark of my conduct in my life.

Secondly, I want to re-emphasize the point that although some would say that if you have a narrow vision you can't see the whole picture, I hope all of us would back off and try to see the whole picture somewhat more than we have in the past, and that I would hopefully, faithfully and to the best of my ability represent the people of my community. I know, without fear of contradiction, that the vast majority of those people at this point in time cannot support Bill 167 as it is written.

Many of my colleagues want to speak today and I've taken a couple minutes more time than I had anticipated. I want to thank them for giving me the chance to be here today and to participate in this and to cast my vote. I hope that when all is said and done, we will perhaps try to heal some of the wounds that have been created here; that we will move from this place to build a province that can build from the strength that it now has to greater strength, not only economically and in all the other facets that we happen to work towards in this role that we call political life and the legislative process, but also in the fabric of our communities; the fabric of our families, however those families are defined; the fabric of our churches and the interaction of interest groups, and as a whole group of people seeking to make this place a better place for us to live and for our kids and our grandchildren to live, so that we can truly say that this is the finest place in all of the world to be, to be part of this place we call Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Brampton North for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Like my colleagues here in the House, we listened with great intensity to the words of the member for Brampton North. I think it's a reflection of the depth of his thinking that it took a while to figure out just where he was going to come down on Bill 167.

Of course, I was greatly disappointed to hear of his decision and a bit surprised, frankly, because he put a lot of emphasis on what it means to be a representative. In fact, I think even the difficulty he had in articulating his views shows that he's a bit unclear, as we all are, I think, on what exactly representation is. After all, we hear a lot of views from people, and it's not clear exactly what their views are, a lot of the time, and even how we then form our views.

But I have to say I think it's a very static kind of approach that he has to the question of values. We can show leadership here and actually mould values. How values are formed, after all, comes through influences. I think we have a much more dynamic role than he was letting on.

I thought too that his remarks about interest groups were off the mark in that it sounded a bit paternalistic to me that he suggested just coming around a table will somehow solve all the differences of point of view, when in fact what we have to do is to be very upfront about where we stand.

The third thing is his views on Bill 167, where he says he's going to vote on what it is now. The fact is, I think it would be much more consistent with his first position to vote in favour of Bill 167 with the promise of amending it. He knows well it will go to committee, where these amendments can take place. If they don't take place, he has every opportunity at the third reading to vote against it. But to be consistent with the kind of dialogue that he seems to be favouring, we've got to get this passed at second reading so that it'll go into committee.

I think he's being very unfair in thinking that there haven't been changes promised to this, changes that would be consistent with his party's outlook, if not his own. He should be putting forward that we could get more debate on this so we can open it up to the community, so it can become more than a static kind of dialogue and we can show leadership.

As the Premier pointed out in his remarks, there's a history to this debate. We've come a long way and we've reached a point in this province, as polls have shown, that there's a lot of support for doing the things we're proposing in Bill 167, as it will be amended. It's no time now to turn back.

I say to you, member for Brampton North, it's time to make that step. You've done a great job up to this point. I think with just a little reflection, a little, shall we call it, backbone, you can do it. I plead with you to vote for Bill 167 now.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I hadn't intended to speak again in this debate, because I've had my opportunity to put my views on the record. But I had to say that the member for Brampton North has put before us one of the most thoughtful and sensitive speeches.

He has tried to do something very few of us have tried to do, and that is to bridge the two groups so that there would be understanding. I haven't heard any of us, on either side of the House, make that call and that plea to try to understand what other people are saying, what they're doing.

1710

In disagreement with the member who just spoke, I will say to you that the member for Brampton North showed a hell of a lot of backbone. I apologize for my language, but I'm upset because I had made a very political piece of advice to all members of our caucus. I said, "Regardless of how we normally vote on first reading, in this case vote on first reading how you intend to end up." He said: "No, because this debate must be held. We must hear both sides. We must make an informed decision."

I say that takes courage, particularly when he knew many of his constituents would not stand behind him in that decision. So I appreciate how soul-searching this has been for all of us, but I think, for the member for Brampton North, he has shown that this place brings out the best in us and the worst in us, and let us not forget that.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I have not participated in this debate, though I support very strongly the legislation the Attorney General has brought forward.

As I listened to the member for Brampton North sharing with us his twisting as he decided how to come to a conclusion on this -- and I respected him for voting on first reading -- I have to say that I was disappointed at the point at which he ended up, and particularly disappointed when he hides behind the fact that the vote today will be on the bill as it is written, and I've heard a number of his colleagues say that. He has been in this House long enough to know that is the way in which legislation proceeds.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): How you so polarized every constituent of this province by your mismanagement and the way you handled this issue.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale is out of order.

Hon Mrs Grier: I hope the members opposite will concede a very genuine attempt on the part of our government to in fact address the issues and the requests and the concerns that were raised in this debate. As the Premier said in his such wonderful remarks to this Legislature, if the amendments are not to their liking at third reading, then they have the further opportunity to vote against it.

I say that particularly to those who were here in the debate on the amendment to the Human Rights Code, as I was, in 1986. I say it to the member for Brampton South, who in that debate said:

"...We are dealing with human beings. There are a large number of homosexuals and lesbians currently living in society in Ontario....

"What do we do? Do we simply turn a blind eye to that fact and say that these people are nonentities and that they are not going to be given the liberties or protections provided under the Human Rights Code...?"

I say that's what we should be doing today by voting for second reading.

The member for Oriole in that debate said:

"Denying any minority group these basic human rights does not enhance our traditional moral societal values. It not only mocks those values, but also tarnishes all that we cherish in this land of freedom. Perhaps the day will come when other minority groups not currently listed will be identified."

Those were the values in 1986. I hope they show up later this afternoon.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): As one of the advocates in my caucus for Bill 167, which I've indicated I would vote for in its current form -- I would vote for it, too, in its amended form -- I do want to say that I think the member for Brampton North showed great courage in voting yes on first reading. I'm disappointed in the result he's come to, but I understand the process he went through. I think it showed great courage for him, and showed respect for the democratic process, that he allowed the bill to at least have the debate, that he listened to that debate, that he used the debate to educate himself. I would wish he had come to a different result, but I understand that at least he had the courage and integrity to permit it to happen, and for that I thank him.

I do want to say that I also agree with him when he said this is an issue that won't go away. I hope and pray that this bill will not be defeated today. However, I am discouraged at what might happen. We are going to be forced to vote on this bill barely 24 hours after some proposed amendments are going to be made, giving members not even the time to consult with their constituents or advisers or community. That's unfortunate, but the government has made that decision.

I will again stand on second reading and vote in favour of Bill 167, the 167 I voted for on first reading, which I support. I would hope that the bill survives second reading to go to committee so we can see what amendments can be made. I would urge those who are voting no to reconsider, but I know that even if this battle is lost, through the efforts of this debate and through the efforts of the courts, the war will be won for equality for gays and lesbians.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Brampton North has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr McClelland: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I appreciate that. I just want to say to the Minister of Health as she leaves that in point of fact -- it may have sounded like I was twisting -- I was trying to walk through, if you will, Madam Minister, as you leave -- please feel free to do so -- the process that I think most of us went through.

I arrived at my decision fairly conclusively and fairly quickly, upon review of the legislation and after considering the legislation and discussing it with a number of people, but ultimately searching within my own mind and heart in terms of how I felt about the legislation as it's written.

I want to thank those of my colleagues again who have expressed a measure of understanding. I say to my colleague the member from Kingston that I regret that he did not understand the invitation I was putting in terms of the interest groups and various organizations, whether they be church or parachurch or particular interest groups, to dialogue and to work on a continuing basis rather than on a reactive basis, which I think has been predominantly, not exclusively, the case.

That will certainly not solve all the problems that we will deal with. It won't even begin to do anything other than open up a healthy and complete and honest debate. That is the invitation that I extend once again and I hope the member for Kingston will understand that. I'm not naïve enough to believe that sitting down in a room is going to solve all the problems, but it will certainly move us along the way.

Mr Speaker, again thank you for your indulgence and that of my colleagues in giving me an opportunity to speak today.

The Speaker: Is there further debate on this legislation?

Mr Bisson: I want to take a few minutes to put on the record a little bit of my thoughts in regard to this legislation, but more than that I want to share with members and more importantly the constituents of Cochrane South the anthology in regard to my position on this particular legislation.

I would say to most people, just so they understand how I came to vote yes on first reading and would vote yes on second and third reading if we ever got that far, why I did so, because initially I opposed this legislation like most people in this House and like probably most people in my constituency initially.

Why? Probably because of the reason most people would be afraid of it, because it is the unknown. I'm a heterosexual. I don't understand the questions of gay rights. I don't understand the questions of what it is to be a homosexual or a lesbian. The unknown, I think, scares many of us. It's something that is just natural within human beings.

More particularly, as a politician -- I'll be very honest with people and I'll be honest with the people in my riding -- I was afraid that if I stood in this Legislature and I voted yes, that the wrath of my voters would be felt come some 12 or 14 months from now. That's a pretty big stick when it comes to one's position on this particular legislation.

But I thought, in order to be honest about this, that once a decision had been made -- because I think people need to understand how this came to be. This didn't all of a sudden pop up two weeks ago where the government of Ontario decided all of a sudden that it was going to put forward a bill called Bill 167. Because of decisions in the courts, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Human Rights Commission, the government of Ontario has been told that we are discriminating against a certain sector of our population when it comes to gays and lesbians vis-à-vis benefits and other issues residing around the whole issue that we find in Bill 167.

The issue came back to my caucus on a number of occasions and as a caucus we had difficulty dealing with it, I would say like most people in this House on the opposition side, because I think they've only had to try to deal with it lately, and probably the difficulty that most constituents have. But eventually a decision was made by the majority, and I would say the vast majority, of this caucus. It wasn't a 50-50 thing, as it was purported. Clearly, 80% to 90% of the members of this caucus voted together that we had to go forward because it was fundamentally a human rights issue.

1720

At the point the decision was made to go ahead, and the majority of my caucus had decided to go ahead, I had to ask myself one question: I'm on the opposite side of the issue. Why? If a majority of the people I respect and a majority of the people I see as being good, decent human beings all of a sudden decide collectively that this is the right thing to do, maybe I should go back and revisit my position, because maybe there was a possibility I was wrong because of my phobias having to do with homosexuality, because of my phobias having to do with the whole question of what it is to be gay.

I didn't know how to do that. I quite frankly didn't know where to start, and it just scared me, to put it bluntly.

I went back to my constituency and sat down with some people I know in my riding association, sat down with one of my staff members and sat down with other people I know within the riding, and they said, "Probably the best thing you can do is to try to go out and seek out people in your community who are gay and talk to them about the issue to see how they feel."

I thought, well, Jeez, in the riding of Cochrane South, here's a community where mining and lumber is the mainstay of the economy. I'm not going to find a lot of gay people in communities like Timmins and Matheson and Iroquois Falls, because that only happens in Toronto. After all, everybody in northern Ontario is supposedly straight.

Well, was I surprised. I started finding out that in my community there are literally thousands of gay people. But what was more remarkable and really interesting is that these people were afraid of coming out of the closet and saying, "I am gay," because they were afraid of the repercussions they would get within their community.

What surprised me even more was that the people who were gay were not the people who were being described through this debate and the people who would be described through the generalities of how we see gay people. They were people like you and me. They were men and women of all classes in our society, from people who work in administrative positions of mining companies, lumber companies, administrations of various organizations, to working people: miners, construction workers, you name it. It was mind-boggling, because I had never dealt with it.

One of my co-workers at a former job, when I worked at the McIntyre mine in Timmins, said: "Don't you remember? There were two homosexual couples who worked with us for five years when we worked underground at the McIntyre." I'd forgotten.

I'd forgotten, because I had at one point started understanding it was no threat to me. That those two separate couples decided that was the way they wanted to live and that's how they found love within their relationship was no threat to me when I worked at the mine. Why should it be a threat now?

I started, quite reluctantly, trying to deal with this, because the next possible problem I had was, my God, if I'm wrong on this, how am I going to deal with my constituents? Supposedly, all my constituents are telling me that 90% of people are opposed to this, and that somehow if I vote in favour of this legislation, even though I was a wonderful member, according to them -- giving me my plug for the next election -- they would vote against me, solely on this issue.

I started to wonder: Now, hang on a second. People are telling me from the gay community there's discrimination. People in the straight community are telling me there's no discrimination. Yet when I, as the representative of the riding of Cochrane South, start musing about the possibility of voting yes, I'm being told, "You vote yes, you're gone." That told me something. That told me there is discrimination.

The one thing I know as a social democrat, and I think the one thing we all know as politicians within this room, no matter what party we represent, is that the reason we are sent to the Legislature, and the responsibility we take once we come here, is to uphold the premise of what is found in our Constitution and to uphold the premise of what is found within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: that at every opportunity we will fight against discrimination, and I think that's what this bill tries to do.

It's been a fairly difficult road for me because of the history I have. I come from workplaces where it was 99.9% male, working in mines and working in the bush, where I thought this kind of stuff didn't happen, to the point where I am now, starting to understand that it's not a question that people all of a sudden choose to go out and live a homosexual or lesbian lifestyle, it's a question that they are, and they're a lot larger majority than we would think.

I decided in the end that the only thing I could do, the only responsible thing I could do, was to vote yes. So when we came into the House a couple of weeks ago, I stood in my place and I voted yes and went back to my riding.

I expected that the minute I got off the plane back in the riding of Cochrane South, everybody would be running up to me and saying, "Gilles, what have you done?" But it was surprising. A lot of people in my community were coming and saying: "It takes courage to do what you did. I don't understand it, but it seems like the right thing to do." As people started to understand, like me, what the issue was all about, they started understanding that it didn't only seem like the right thing to do but it was the right thing to do. Many of the people who were calling my constituency office two and three weeks before, expressing displeasure against the legislation, the legislation as it was at that time, as they learned more about the issue were calling back and saying, "Yes, it is the right thing to do."

We need to recognize this issue for what it is. We have to search within our own hearts, because it is a personal issue, but we need to understand what our responsibility as legislators is. Our responsibility is to uphold the Constitution of Canada and to uphold the Charter of Rights. We swore to that when we were elected to this place. We were marched into the Clerk's office and we were asked to swear to our Constitution. If we believe in parliamentary democracy, we have no choice. It becomes strictly a question that we have to do this.

In closing, I would say a couple of things to some of the members who don't feel it in their hearts to vote for this legislation, and I say this to some of my own colleagues. Yes, it is a difficult thing to do to stand and say yes. Yes, possibly people in your own ridings may give you a hard time. But don't allow your difficulties in dealing with this issue hold up the rights of other people, because as legislators and social democrats we should never do that. We have to have courage and we have to have the fortitude to go forward and say to people in this province, "We have a Constitution and in that Constitution there is a charter. It invokes rights, and the people in this province are entitled to those rights."

Some people will say: "The legislation wasn't well done. It should have been done this way; it should have been done that way." Quite frankly, those are just excuses. It doesn't matter how you do this; you would have got that criticism. Either you is for it or you is against it. It is as simple as that.

I ask members in this House to reflect. If they truly believe in the democracy we believe in, allow this vote to pass second reading. Allow the bill to get to committee so we can place the amendments so we can move on with it, because the people in my riding have told me one thing through this whole debate: "Gilles, if the government is willing to amend the question of adoption and amend the definition of 'spouse,' I'm with it. I'll support this hands down."

That is what the government has done, so there's no reason at this point, in my view, to vote no, other than what my reason was at the outset, which was, "I'm afraid to do it." Let's have some courage, let's stand in our place and let's do what is right. Let's do what we are charged with doing, upholding the charter of this country, and vote yes.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Cochrane South for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm going to use the opportunity to put a few of my thoughts on the record. To begin, I fundamentally disagree with the member for Cochrane South, who has said in some convoluted sense that those who oppose this legislation are, in his opinion, contravening the Charter of Rights and the Constitution.

Second, I disagree with the member who says that those who vote against this legislation are in some way portraying an effrontery to the democratic process. I think it is absolutely necessary that we recognize that what we have before us is a free vote on a bill that has been the subject of intense debate, not only in this Legislature but indeed in heated discussion throughout our community.

At the outset, let me indicate that I am going to be voting against this bill on second reading, as I did on first reading. However, I'd like to take a moment to certainly acknowledge the many hundreds of letters, telephone calls, faxes and petitions that I received on both sides of this issue throughout my community. I certainly do acknowledge and appreciate the effort that has been taken by many people, not only in my community but I believe throughout all communities, sharing their thoughts on this particular matter.

1730

I recognize that as there are people who are in favour of this legislation, there are those who are opposed to this legislation. I recognize that. There have been a number of reasons put forward on both sides of the issue. In the end, it is a personal vote, a free vote. In the end, it is us, as legislators, saying what we feel. For that, after listening to all of those who have shared their thoughts with me, I will be voting against this legislation.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I wanted to comment on the points my colleague from Cochrane South made. He made some very good points, and while he was making them, I recalled some of my own thoughts as we were going through this process. I think his description of what was going on in caucus is pretty accurate.

I had a letter sent to me and the letter said:

"Do you know what it is like to be a societal leper? Do you know what it's like when the public treats families of gays and lesbians.... Do you know what it's like as the parent of a homosexual man?

"The Legislature has the opportunity to recognize my family, one that consists of a mom and dad, of a homosexual son and a heterosexual daughter. I am proud to be part of my family. I am proud to be the mother of Stephen and Linda, even though the Legislature finds it necessary to debate whether my family is worthy of God's love, respect and its rights.

"I challenge any of you to tell my neighbours in Uxbridge to confront me to my face and to tell me that my family is not worthy of enjoying the rights of other Ontario constituents."

It reflects what my colleague from Cochrane South has said, because the fact is that it is a difficult issue. When it showed up on the front page of the Uxbridge paper that "MPP Votes in Support of Same-Sex Bill," people told me, "That's it, game over." That's not what it's about; it's about doing what's right and speaking on behalf of our constituents, like the one who sent me this letter, and that's what I think he has done by doing what he has done here.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to take a moment, since I won't have another opportunity to speak to this issue, to tell you about some of my experience in my riding.

I guess at the outset I want to lament what I feel is the greatest casualty which has resulted from this debate, particularly in the way it has been mismanaged, and that is the cause of understanding of each group by the other. The way the debate has developed and escalated has led to extreme positions taken by either side.

In my riding, when I receive telephone calls from my gay constituents, and we all surely do have them, I am branded a bigot or an intellectual Neanderthal when I raise the obligation that I have to ensure that the rest of my riding is brought along with us in a gradual way and one in which they can have some feeling of comfort.

When I deal with my heterosexuals who call me, I am told that I must be a closet homosexual, or they ask whether I'm married and truly have four children. That again is a reflection of the extremism with which this debate has unfortunately been visited. I remind that group that we have an obligation here in this House not to do anything which is either explicit or implicit in terms of sending out a signal that somehow our gay constituents are less than the rest of us.

My concern is that the debate has become so polarized that I have been unable to get my constituents to speak to each other, to gain some understanding of each other. When my children fight at home, at the end of the fight I try to make them shake hands. When they've had a particularly boisterous scuffle, I can't do that, and for a long time, which in kids' time is about 15 minutes to a half-hour, they won't shake hands. And I can't get my heterosexuals and my gay community today to shake hands.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I feel emotional about this issue too. As the Premier said, people are who they are, and whichever way this vote goes, they will continue to be who they are, whether we approve of that or not. Don't we believe that it's better for people to live in a loving relationship than in isolation? If we vote against this bill, we're voting to break up families, to put people back into isolation. These relationships exist already. All we're doing if we deny this bill is to continue to disadvantage them. Let's stop putting barriers in the way of people who want to form loving relationships. These families exist already.

When we're talking about adoption, we're not talking about creating families; we're talking about preserving families that exist already. In many cases, one of those people is the natural parent.

Since my own beliefs have become known, I have begun to hear, in addition to opposition, the other voice, of those who were maybe afraid to make themselves known before, and it's quite amazing what is happening in that direction.

There are times when you have to vote your conscience, just as there are times when you have to disobey orders. I think the events commemorating D-Day and reminding us of the Second World War should maybe encourage us to think a little bit along those lines.

What does the granting of rights to gays take away from anybody else? The opponents are just foisting their values upon other people. It does not affect them.

I believe this is a human rights issue and I shall certainly be voting for the bill.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Cochrane South has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Bisson: I would like to thank the members for making comments on my comments. I only wish that I would have longer, because there are a couple of things that I want to put on the record and unfortunately don't have the time to do.

I just want to leave the members with these two thoughts in the end. There are two recurring themes in why people vote no. One is that they want to do what the majority in their riding want them to do. I just say, as politicians, we also have a responsibility of leadership. If we were to hold true what people say when it comes to only doing what the majority want in the ridings, we would never have done the health program that we have today under OHIP, we would never have done any of the progressive things that we take as the definition of Canada today, because when we set out to do some of those things in the past, such as OHIP, such as civil rights, such as employment equity, such as all the equity issues, we probably wouldn't have them today. It happened because politicians took the leadership. Eventually, it's what defines us as Canadians and what sets us out from the rest of the other people in the world.

The other thing I wanted to mention, and I didn't get a chance in my speech, was that one of the members said, "I don't want to vote in favour of it because I don't feel comfortable voting in favour, because this goes against what I am." Again, I remind people, there's a whole bunch of people -- if we were to utilize that argument, my God, the civil rights movement and the rest of it, I don't want to make the analogies, but a lot of people were fairly challenged about doing some pretty progressive things in the past, and if we had held true to that thought, we wouldn't have done them.

I offer members a compromise. If we're worried about standing up and voting in favour of this bill, the compromise is, let's do a voice vote and in the end allow this thing to go to committee by voice vote. You can hide in the majority of this House without anybody ever knowing how you would have voted at second reading. Allow this thing to go to second reading so that we can at least put the motions forward, so that we can at least get it into committee, and then bring it back after that at third reading and decide what to do. So I ask you: Please, let's try to do it by voice vote. We'll all be okay in the end.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I know there's an agreement that we end at 5:45 and my comments that I had to make would have extended beyond that time, but I just want to take this opportunity to put a few comments on the record about my feeling about this extremely important bill.

This afternoon, I heard many emotions being expressed on this type of legislation. Over the last week or so, many people have come into my constituency office and also my office here, lesbians and gays, heterosexuals, who have expressed their concern about this legislation, Bill 167. But they themselves were as moved as my colleagues in the House about the concerns about their rights.

There are no other concerns that parliamentarians can deal with that are so important as human rights issues. I don't have any corner on human rights issues or the solutions. As a matter of fact, we have seen around the world how difficult it is for justice to be done to people who have been denied their human rights.

1740

We know very well that the gays and lesbians have been abused in many respects, misunderstood, and also that in many ways people have not had an opportunity to express their views, and we talk about going into the closet. We've also known that the heterosexual side of it does not understand either. We have a responsibility on all sides to make all those groups understand that kind of frustration and emotion they go through. My colleagues previously have spoken about how the traditional way of the family has been growing apart, and now that we've introduced a new system of life for acceptance, we need that kind of education. Because once upon a time I feel human rights issues could have easily been achieved by legislating laws, very rigid laws, and having people follow them. Also too I at one stage really believed that if we publicly demonstrate our concerns and flush out the bigots and the sexists and all those people, the homophobics, that somehow it will correct the force.

Sometimes I feel too, as I hear the Premier speak here, and some others spoke about leadership, that we must get out in the front and go forward. But many a time when we charge on those efforts and say, "Charge! Let's change those things," when we look behind us, there is nobody behind us. We cannot make changes in isolation. We have to bring the people along. We have to make sure they understand the issue, that when laws are made, or anything at all, we should somehow demonstrate that people understand the issue.

A good example, of course, is South Africa, as we saw it. Even when we knew that human rights have been violated in that country for over 30 years with the apartheid situation --

Interjection.

Mr Curling: I would like the member herself to give me the kind of respect to give my view as I gave her leader, to say that even Mandela, who was in prison for years, and even de Klerk, who himself had held certain views, and Buthelezi, who held another view, that at the time when we came together to resolve those issues, we realized that all people have to be on side, and compromise was made even when the election was called, that people have to bring everyone in force, and the manner in which this was handled.

As a matter of fact, it's not only a human rights issue that is at stake here. It's how we handle those issues. I had explained to my constituency that Bill 167 is the way to go, and they responded in that way.

The Attorney General called me yesterday. She was of course concerned about how the progress was going, and I expressed my concern too in the short time we had in which to change it. I felt I was cornered in a way when I heard the announcement half an hour after she spoke to me that she intended to make some changes. I had no time in which to communicate to my constituency. We've got to bring them on side.

So I'll be voting against this Bill 167, because that is what I put before the people. I believe in human rights and will continue to advocate the struggles of the gays and the lesbians and what they're fighting for. It's not the end.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Scarborough North for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I will say very briefly two things. I must say how disappointed I am that a member, whatever his or her position in this House, would call upon the name of Nelson Mandela to justify a vote against advancing human rights in this province.

I would say I don't intend to be partisan at all here. I would say that as a person who has taken a position clearly over the years, I respect the way that members on all sides of this question have struggled with the issue. I believe that all of us must look to ourselves and to our inner feelings and views as well as listening to our constituents.

But I would say wholeheartedly that there never has been a case that I know of in human history where minorities' rights have been advanced by so-called leaders who have said, "We must have the majority in favour before we move." I have never understood any situation like this where a group has been oppressed, discriminated against, where that was recognized, but a person who dared call himself a leader would say, "I recognize the unfairness, the discrimination, but I can't act because the majority does not agree with me." We must all act on the basis of what we believe to be right, not what we believe to be expedient.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): What some of us who are opposed to this bill find difficult to accept is the lecturing that seems to go on, that if you're opposed to the bill, you're somehow opposed to democracy, that if you're opposed -- you take a comment about this member's remarks when it was the Attorney General who first raised the spectre of South Africa having something to do with this vote. It was not this member; it was the sponsor of this legislation. I just have had it up to here with being called a racist or a bigot because I cannot accept the fact that a spouse is a member of the same sex. That is my right; indeed, my responsibility. I can handle it full well, Mr Minister, without a problem. I just don't agree with it.

I think I have a right, I indeed have an obligation on the part of the people who I represent and on the part of my family to speak from my heart and speak my mind on this issue. I reject any attempt by members of this government to try to muzzle people or try to intimidate us and try to paint this as some kind of a human rights issue. I don't see it in that light. I have a right not to see it in that light if that is my choice and that is my view.

Hon Mr Wildman: That is what Alvin said.

Mr Mahoney: I'm talking about what the minister said, not what Alvin said.

For some this is a difficult issue, and I respect that. I respect the different views in this place and I particularly respect the democratic right of members in this place to disagree and to disagree for whatever reason. I simply ask that you respect my right to disagree and my right to vote against this bill.

Mr Malkowski: I'm pleased to participate in questions and/or comments and wish to respond to the member for Scarborough North. Just for your information, the new South African constitution does recognize the rights of gays and lesbians and Nelson Mandela has clearly supported that struggle. That's a first step for that country.

The history of the votes on human rights and legislation: I don't know; in your party you seem to be turning them down. This is an opportunity and a challenge to us to speak out. I always thought you spoke for human rights and I always thought you would have an opportunity here to demonstrate that commitment. Obviously, I'm wrong: You don't.

You're voting against this. You voted against the OLRA. You voted against the Advocacy Act. You have voted against every bit of progressive legislation we have introduced and, once again, here you go, you're voting against progressive legislation. Why are you voting against same-sex legislation? This is a human rights issue. Once again you vote against. I'm asking you and I'm challenging you to please reconsider how you vote. Show your reputation. You have a shining reputation. Show it.

1750

The Speaker: Further questions or comment? The honourable member for Scarborough North has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Curling: I have my own life to live and I have my own experience in which I've gone through life. I mirror people who have fought for human rights and I try to understand it the best way I can. If you understand it your way, that's your privilege. I have a right to look at Mandela, to look at Martin Luther King, to look at all the leaders who fought for human rights. I don't need you to tell me what I should do.

I heard your leader speak, he spoke very eloquently, and I heard members in my caucus here who spoke for this bill, spoke very well, very convincingly. I listened to the people of my constituency. I was elected on that kind of basis and I will not cringe in any way from my responsibility, but I also have a life which I have lived. The contradiction of my colleague there, who tells me I have a shining reputation, and in the meantime, telling me that I have voted against anything progressive, the hypocrisy in the way that these things are expressed sometimes in this House sometimes moves me in a way to say let us be consistent.

I see changes in human rights in a certain way. If you see changes in that way, that is your responsibility to express it that way. Today, we know it's a very difficult thing. I say again it's a human rights issue and as we play the politics about this game, as we continue to politicize it in a manner, we will lose how we can advance the issue of human rights.

Yes, I voted against the kind of bill that you do for employment equity because even today, after three and a half years, it is still not legislation here, because how can I trust a government that cannot even introduce that after three and a half years? And in one week you want to advance this cause and ask me to understand it fully and tell me not to mirror what I feel this strongly about this legislation.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Curling: I am voting against this legislation.

The Speaker: Is there further debate? Seeing none, the Attorney General has an opportunity to conclude the debate.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to conclude the debate and I want to thank all those who have spoken on this bill. It is a difficult issue and we have heard this afternoon and in previous debate the kinds of personal struggles that people have had coming to their decisions. I, for one, respect that those struggles have taken people in different directions and know that it has not been an easy task and hope that people, in voting according to their conscience, will remember those on whose behalf they have a right to speak this afternoon.

I need to answer very briefly the kinds of challenges that the opposition party has made on the issue of the amendments and the kind of charge that they have made about mismanagement of this issue. Quite frankly, we reject those charges. We, as a party, supported the member for St George-St David when he brought forward Bill 45 because we knew we were not at that point ready to bring forward a bill of our own and we knew it was time for this Legislature to enter into that debate. We supported that bill and we supported that bill coming before committee. We did everything we could to bring that bill to committee and we were stymied by the decision of the opposition House leaders not to bring that bill forward.

We wanted the discussion. We wanted the communities that were concerned, both pro and con, to have an opportunity to express to us as legislators what they believed to be the rights and wrongs of this issue, and it was extremely important that that debate go on, and it was frustrated.

It was a difficult struggle for us; that's why we appreciate the struggle for members of other parties. When we finally were in a position to bring legislation forward ourselves after canvassing all the options that we could think of within the meaning of the charter and brought forward our legislation, it was almost frustrated again. There were those who did not want this debated at all, did not want to be on the record, and we saw a very close vote.

I would say to you, Mr Speaker, that the issue this afternoon is for people to vote at second reading, knowing that amendments are going to come forward, and allow the concerned communities to present their views to us. This is not the last chance that people have to vote on this issue. There is a third reading and there will be an opportunity for those who are not satisfied by the solutions that are reached to take a conclusion at that point. But to take the decision now that they will not allow the communities to speak is a very serious decision.

I would urge all my colleagues in the House to recognize the right of our constituents to appear before us in committee, to express their views and for us to make our judgements at that point in time. I urge my fellow members of this Legislature to vote yes on Bill 167.

The Speaker: Mrs Boyd has moved second reading of Bill 167. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1756 to 1826.

The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats. Before commencing the voting procedure, I would remind our visitors that they are most welcome here, but no form of demonstration or applause is permitted. I would ask that you respect that.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one by one.

Ayes

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie;

MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), Murphy, O'Connor, Owens, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Poirier, Poole, Pouliot, Rae, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Wessenger, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to Mrs Boyd's motion will please rise one by one.

Nays

Abel, Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cooper, Cordiano, Cousens, Crozier, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Farnan, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Hansen, Harnick, Harris, Hayes, Henderson, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Mammoliti, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, McLeod;

Miclash, Mills, Morin, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), North, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Perruzza, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Pilkey, Ramsay, Rizzo, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Waters, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Speaker: The ayes are 59; the nays are 68. I declare the motion lost.

The House adjourned at 1830.

9 juin 1994