Journal des débats 1986-nov-27 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased to rise in the House to begin the debate on second reading of Bill 132. I trust that it will not end there and that the members of the two other parties will seriously consider supporting the bill.

It is important to start out by simply stating what Bill 132 does. The explanatory note on the bill is right on when it says:

"The purpose of the bill is to protect the jobs and rights of employees,

"(a) where work previously done by those employees at an establishment is contracted to another employer;

"(b) where work done at an establishment by employees of a contractor is contracted back to the owner of the establishment; or

"(c) where one contractor is replaced by another."

The bill before us today is one of simple justice and fairness. It is a bill that is long overdue in the province. It would create no undue hardship for any segment of our population but would provide justice that is not now there to many employees in Ontario.

It is important that the members of this House understand who is involved, what they do and what the issue is, and I am appealing directly to my Liberal and Progressive Conservative colleagues.

First, we are dealing with probably 20,000 employees in the Metro Toronto area alone; I do not know what the figure would be across the province. We are dealing with those men and women, and they are largely women, who do the cleaning in the public and private buildings in our community. We are dealing with those in the health care area and in the food service industry, some of the harder-working and lower-paid employees in society.

I ask the members to think about this for a minute. We are dealing with people who do a job that we all appreciate is absolutely essential to a decent and civilized society. I ask the members to think for a moment what it would be like around these buildings if we did not have a staff of people who put in hours of hard work to keep the buildings clean so we can work with some comfort in the building. I ask the members to think of many of the major buildings downtown, whether the Eaton Centre, the Toronto-Dominion Centre, First Canadian Place or the Aetna building, and what it would be like for the public in this country and in this province if those places were not kept clean and accessible to the public. I do not believe any of us would want to go into places like those if they were dirty and simply not inviting to us and to our families.

We are also dealing with a community of workers who are mostly new Canadians, mostly of ethnic background. Indeed, it is a fact that an awful lot of the workers in Toronto in this industry are Portuguese. It is not insignificant that this kind of job is hard but a little easier to obtain because many people do not want to do this kind of work. It is one of the first jobs that new Canadians find they are able to get in our province. They very quickly find, I am sorry to say, that the wages they are paid are low and that their working conditions, the shifts and night work, are not easy ones. They find that they can be discriminated against very quickly and that their jobs are not secure, strictly apart from the wages and benefits they are paid.

There has been a substantial move among these workers to organize and to try to achieve a better standard of living. They are doing that in substantial numbers. When they do organize, obeying the law and living up to the Labour Relations Act, which says it is in the public interest of the province for workers to organize and achieve their rights for free collective bargaining, they find they have not got much once it is done. Under the law of Ontario, a company can simply decide, "If they have those wages up from $5 an hour to $6, $7 or $7.50 or even $8, and if they have achieved some benefits, we can do away with that as soon as our specific contract ends by contracting in somebody else." That is the pattern, an unfortunate pattern, that has taken root in the province.

It is probably useful to quote briefly from a couple of editorials that state the case as well as or better than I could.

The Toronto Star of April 9, 1986 -- I will not read it all, because I have a number of things I want to say -- deals with the rather bitter Olympia and York dispute, which had to be settled by the personal intervention of the Premier (Mr. Peterson). The editorial concludes by saying:

"Ontario has `successor rights' legislation that protects unionized employees when a business is sold. The new owner must continue the collective agreement and ensure that seniority, benefits and wages are maintained. Queen's Park should give contract workers the same kind of protection. That way, workers won't stand to lose if their employer loses a contract."

A more recent editorial in the Toronto Star is dated July 17. It is worth reading the whole thing into the record, but I simply do not have the time. It says in part:

"Queen's Park already has laws to protect unionized employees when a business is sold. Under `successor rights' provisions of the Labour Relations Act, the new owner has to continue the collective agreement and ensure seniority, benefits and wages are maintained. Mackenzie's private member's bill would simply extend these protections to contract workers. It deserves serious consideration."

That says it as well as I could.

Why is the bill before us? It is because of frustration to some extent. I am not sure members in all the parties have clearly understood exactly what we are up against and why this issue has taken so long to achieve any action.

I should point out that on April 2, 1984, the leader of my party made a real plea to legislators to take a serious look at contracting out. He said:

"Contracting out means the employer contracts with a second company to do work which the employer has already contracted with unionized employees to perform. As a result, employees are dismissed by the employer and replaced by other workers. In some cases, the same workers are subsequently hired by the second firm, doing the same jobs as previously but at lower rates of pay, often without the protection of a union."

It goes on from there to list some of the discrimination these employees have run up against.

10:10

That was not the start. It goes back to 1976 or 1977, when my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) was raising this issue. We have some more recent statements worth putting on the record.

On November 7, 1983, in response to a question by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) on contracting out in nursing homes, the then Minister of Labour in the Conservative government answered:

"Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the circumstances. This is not the first time this has occurred over the past number of months.... It is a very complex matter of successor rights, and there is no simple solution to the problem. It is something our ministry is wrestling with at present."

They had been doing it long before that, but that is back in November 1983.

It is significant to put on the record the comments of the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) when he was still in opposition. On April 2, 1984, in a supplementary to a question from the member for York South to Bob Welch on contracting out, the member for Windsor-Sandwich said:

"Surely in this case, where it appears there is a pattern of contracting out in which the people affected are almost exclusively women, he should be willing to sit down with his colleagues and discuss some initiatives other than those which the Ontario Labour Relations Board may or may not take in the fullness of time. Surely the women of this province deserve something better than the kind of uncertainties so many of them are going through now.

"Is he prepared to sit down with his colleague the Minister of Labour...and have a little more formal chat about the kinds of initiatives this government might take to stop this kind of action?"

That was our current Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) speaking on April 2, 1984.

On March 21 , 1985, the then Premier, who was the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), in response to a letter from the member for York South, stated: "I can assure you that the matter is one which the Ministry of Labour continues to review and monitor with genuine concern."

The current Premier (Mr. Peterson) stated and if I had time, I would have liked to have gone into his total answer, because it portrays a mindset that worries it might lead to more union organization than to solving the problem -- in response to a question from the member for Bellwoods about First Canadian Place: "I am not giving him a guarantee that I will change that legislation, but I will look at it. We are reviewing it."

The Minister of Labour stated as recently as October 6, 1986: "Finally, on the policy front, I am sure you are aware, the issue of government and private sector tendering of contracts is under active review by the ministry."

Surely that indicates as clearly as is possible that we have had a long period of taking a look at the injustice done to the cleaning men and women of Ontario and those in other service industries.

What does the bill do? It is worth taking just a moment to explain in more detail what the bill does and to give examples.

The first part of the bill, section 63a, applies in situations where a company contracts out for work being performed by the company's workers. That most closely resembles the situation we had in nursing homes, hospitals and homes for the aged a few years ago.

Incidentally, the answer that may come back, that the Brantwood Manor Nursing Home case was settled through the Ontario Labour Relations Board, is not an answer that makes an awful lot of sense or gives us a lot of security, because that case has been appealed by the Brantwood nursing home people. We are in for a long period of argument over whether the decision made in support of the workers can be sustained. We have not answered it through appeals to the labour relations board.

The second part of the bill, section 63b, applies in situations where a contract exists between the owner of a business and a contractor and protects the workers and their collective agreement when the contract is terminated by either party or when it expires according to its own terms.

This provision applies to the situations we have seen at Conestoga College, at the Toronto-Dominion Centre, at First Canadian Place and at a location in Ottawa, where we are just now going through the loss of 140 jobs as a result of a change of contractor. They will get $1 an hour less -- and they were getting only $5 and some change per hour -- if they want to apply to the new contractor. Several have, but nobody as yet has been hired in that situation.

We can clearly see that the bill deals specifically with the problem. Some people have raised arguments and concerns about whether the bill is too broad, whether it may prevent, encourage or affect other areas. I do not think it does. I received a legal opinion on that just today from lawyers with the United Steelworkers of America whom I asked about the situation. They have pointed out a couple of small areas where there might be some conflict.

I want to say to the members of the other two parties that this bill is not as broad as the Minister of Labour tries to indicate. If there are concerns about any part of it, we think this issue is so vital and so important that the way to answer two or three minor points of concern is to do it in clause-by-clause debate, where we can move amendments on further debate of this piece of legislation.

I want to move from that. I will not have time to reserve, if I am going to make the remarks I want to. It is vital that members understand that what we are dealing with here is a fundamental issue of justice for these cleaning men and women in Ontario. The Conservatives, through their labour critic at the time, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), promised these men and women that the Tories would support changes to section 63 of the legislation and would even support this bill. I hope they are going to live up to that promise.

However, I am disturbed when I hear from the former Labour critic of the Conservative Party that the best he can offer is a free vote. All private members' bills are free votes. He will try to get some support from his caucus. I think the letters he sent to the cleaners were well meant when he sent them. In the one he sent to Costa and do Couto, he said:

"I was most pleased to have the opportunity to meet with your delegation last week. As we discussed at the meeting, the Progressive Conservative Party supports the successor rights provision of section 63 of the Labour Relations Act to cover cleaners and other employees of subcontractors. In making this change, the employment and collective agreements of this group of workers would then be protected in the event the subcontractor employer changes. If I can be of further assistance to you in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me."

He was quoted as saying in the Legislature on April 25: "With the support of the two opposition parties, we could pass" -- the extension of successor rights for employees of cleaning contractors -- "very quickly."

He is right. What we can get the government to do I do not know, but exactly that could happen with the support of the Conservative Party.

I want to say to the Liberals that I suppose the comments I have read out from the Minister of Labour and the Premier -- and there are others -- clearly indicate that they recognize the need; they recognize the problem here. I hope they recognize there is a question of fundamental justice.

The answer we had from the Premier with regard to the major dispute in which he was involved was that he did not care or that it was not an issue of protecting the unions; it was an issue of protecting the workers.

I suggest to Liberal members that they should stop and think for a minute. Are we always going to react and intervene on a personal basis in an effort to solve a problem when it is right there at that given time, like a doctor who will treat an immediate emergency? Is it not much more important in our society that we treat the causes of the disease and put in place the legislation that prevents this from happening before the workers in an establishment are hurt, in many cases hurt very seriously?

If I can find it, I would like to end with a quote or two from a piece in the Toronto Star. It is important to put this on record. I want to appeal to my Liberal colleagues across the way. I am not doing it in a negative or challenging fashion, but in the hope that it will get through to them what is at stake in this debate. It is an article by Sandro Contenta in the Toronto Star of March 11, 1986, dealing with the case of one of the many cleaning women involved. It struck me as I read it and when I reread it as we were preparing for this debate. It simply says:

10:20

"Maria Medeiros's hands are rough and she suffers the odd pinch in her back, thanks to 13 years of lifting furniture and pushing a mop. For the last seven years, she's scrubbed and shined the 33rd floor of First Canadian Place....

"Long hours, heavy work, minimum wage and no job security are the norm for Medeiros and her fellow cleaners. In the past, workers have been locked out for arriving five minutes late. Being fired on the spot was a constant threat.

"In 1979, the women joined a union to fight for gains most workers take for granted. Still, Medeiros and 250 other cleaners of First Canadian Place and the Exchange Towers last month were faced with a tough choice: Either agree to have their salaries slashed to minimum wage -- losing their collective agreement and effectively breaking their union -- or lose their jobs."

The last couple of paragraphs in the article read:

"After he made the deal to save cleaners' jobs, Peterson told reporters that changing the law would `tie the hands of the commercial world' by making it impossible for companies to contract out for cheap labour. However, a policy analyst for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association told the Star she had no idea how allowing a collective agreement to stand once a contract is tendered would hurt industry's flexibility." I do not either.

The last paragraph is the most revealing of all. "`The Liberals won't do anything,' said Medeiros. `You know why? Because they have business friends who fill up their pockets with money. It's true. That's the way it works.'"

I hope that is not the case with the members of the Liberal caucus, that they understand clearly what is at stake here, an issue of basic justice and equality for these workers, and that they will support Bill 132 in the House today.

Mr. Ferraro: It is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate on the member's proposed Bill 132, although I rise in opposition to the bill. It is no surprise to the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) that I am opposed to this bill. In the past, we have been and probably will continue to be in different spectrums of socialism versus free enterprise, and I deem it exactly that.

The bill being proposed by the member is in essence a reaction to an isolated incident that occurred at First Canadian Place. Admittedly, it has happened on other occasions, but it should be worthy of note that the case of the cleaners was resolved, with the co-operation of the Premier, I might add; and it is a problem, I admit.

The member himself said there are problems with the bill. It is refreshing to hear him say that. This problem of subcontracting or contracting out will be resolved by this government, but it is not as easy as the member for Hamilton East might want to indicate.

I want to speak against this bill specifically from the perspective of small business. People will know that 320,000 small businesses employ half the people in Ontario, if not more, or roughly 1.9 million people of a total work force of approximately 3.9 million. What Bill 132 does is essentially to force any small business that has a subcontract from a large individual or firm to become unionized. It then causes significant problems for the economy of Ontario.

Let me add a bit about how it affects small business. Of Ontario's small firms, 90 per cent are nonunion. Eighty per cent of the exports of small manufacturers are in goods sold to larger firms and exported by them. This shows that such a bill would seriously damage the financial strength of the business sector, especially manufacturing.

Interjections.

Mr. Ferraro: I hear members from the socialist party criticizing me. That is fine. I listened intently to their colleague. They should at least have the courtesy to listen to what I say. I am not asking them to agree with me, because I know they will not, but it would be appreciated if they would listen. Perhaps it is part of the inherent nature of a New Democratic not to have any courtesy.

The bill would force small businesses to become unionized members. This itself, in my view and in the view of many small business associations, is wrong and undemocratic.

The debate about Bill 132 must include this discussion, a consideration of the basic rights of Ontarians to enter into contracts or compete for business contracts with whomsoever they wish. This bill does not do that. The right of the business owner and of his or her employees to decide for themselves whether they want to become unionized is totally disregarded in this legislation. It is quite simple. They do not have a choice. If they want to work under this contract, they have to become unionized.

What would happen if this bill passed? There are some frightening implications, to say the least. Contractors seeking subcontractors may look out of the province or out of the country for those subcontractors. The daily cry in this House about lost jobs, particularly from the members of the third party, is proof enough that a rise in unemployment is unacceptable.

Small firms that live by their contracts with larger firms would be forced to unionize. In addition, those firms could face economic hardships because of an imposed collective agreement. Inevitably, the consumers in this province will face higher prices because of higher costs of labour. A survey done this year by various small business association shows fewer jobs would be created. In fact, 62 per cent of small firms say they consider the cost of payroll taxes when they are thinking about hiring.

Bill 132 would solve the problems of the cleaners, but it would do nothing for small businessmen, 90 per cent of whom are not unionized at all. It is like weeding a flower box with a Rototiller. It is overkill, to say the least. These are not just thoughts that are being expressed by me, proudly, as a representative of small business, but also by other small business associations. Let me read into the record a couple comments.

Jim Bennett of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is quoted as saying, "The Ontario Labour Relations Act is already overwhelmingly biased in favour of unions." Judith Andrew from the same association says, "Contracting out fosters the birth and growth of small business and a healthier and more productive economy." The CFIB contends that the bill is a counterproductive policy proposal.

Mr. McClellan: You should run for office in Poland.

[Interruption]

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind those in the gallery that no demonstration of any kind is permitted.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Including laughing at the jokes of the member for Bellwoods.

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the members of the third party will assist by declining from interjecting.

Mr. Ferraro: Geoffrey Hale of the Canadian Organization of Small Business said:

"To use your influence to shelve Bill 132 is an active desire" -- on the part of his association -- "to ensure thereby that small businesses retain the right to compete for business contracts without the threat of mandatory and retroactive unionization."

The member for Hamilton East and his party admit that there are some problems and that something should be done, and we agree. I reiterate that this bill is essentially one of overkill and extremely dangerous to the small business community.

I am surprised by the reaction of at least one member of the Conservative caucus, the labour critic. The member for Hamilton East has already quoted a letter saying the Conservative labour critic is in support of this. I find it interesting that a party which for so long purported to be the champion of free enterprise and the small businessman would unequivocally come out in support of this; in other words, forcing small business to become union members. This is what the labour critic of the Conservative Party has done in writing.

One of my own ministers was criticized the other day for something he signed. The member for Brantford, who obviously sits to the left of his leader, perhaps should move down about 10 or 15 rows and join the New Democratic Party. I am sure every Conservative in Ontario will be very proud of the action of this member.

In fairness, the small business critic, the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow), has a different point of view, and I respect him for that. I hope that is the predominant view of the members of his caucus.

10:30

The problems associated with contracting out and subcontracting will be dealt with by this government in a much more effective and democratic way than this bill proposes. The rights of workers and business owners must be balanced in legislation of this type. Bill 132 is by no means a balancing act. I believe the rights of both groups are being ignored. In particular, the rights of the workers to determine whether they want to join a union are being ignored, and the rights of the businessman are not being considered.

The House will be voting on this in a few hours, if not minutes. It is very simple for the members of the third party to say it is not serious. In my consultations with all the small business organizations, I have found that employers and some workers are frightened by the implications of Bill 132. We should make no mistake about it; unlike all the members of the Progressive Conservative Party, I can stand here and say the Liberal Party of Ontario will be voting against this bill. We believe we can come up with a better idea that is much more equitable and much more democratic.

Mr. Barlow: It is a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill and to follow my friend and neighbour the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro). The seriousness of Bill 132 weighs heavily on all members of this assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The security people will please remove the people from the northeast gallery, not including the front row. Please clear that portion.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder whether it is necessary to clear the gallery now. Perhaps we could advise the people in the gallery --

The Deputy Speaker: No, I am sorry. I did warn them. There was the hissing --

Mr. Mackenzie: The Deputy Speaker would rather put them in jail.

The Deputy Speaker: Please clear the portion of the northeast gallery, excluding the front row. Excuse me; exclude the back two rows too, please. There was no demonstration in that area.

Mr. Mackenzie: There were a number of people throughout who did not participate in that demonstration.

The Deputy Speaker: Correct, in fairness, but the Speaker cannot cherry-pick different people throughout who did or did not. The demonstration came from a certain area. I tried to isolate that area as well as I could.

Mr. Polsinelli: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I raise for your consideration whether it is appropriate in our society to punish some innocent people to ensure that the guilty are caught.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The chair has made its ruling.

Mr. Barlow: This is certainly not a frivolous piece of proposed legislation. I would like to believe that Bill 132 has been introduced by the NDP Labour critic, the member for Hamilton East, in his sincere desire to help people who feel vulnerable when it comes time for an employer to trim costs.

When Bill 132 was first introduced, I had my executive assistant call the member for Hamilton East, who happened to answer the phone that day, to see what he was intending. Frankly, I was pleased to hear he was introducing legislation that would protect, to use his words, the low-paid Portuguese immigrant cleaning women from arbitrary loss of jobs when jobs are contracted out to other firms.

I was most anxious to examine proposed legislation that could effectively help a designated group of people without having its tentacles wandering into other milieux. My curiosity was aroused, since I know that to discriminately single out a certain gender, nationality or group of people for specialized treatment contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nevertheless, if the NDP labour critic had been clever enough to figure out a way one could do just that, he would have had my support.

After all, a large proportion of my riding is made up of people of Portuguese origin. Close to 20 per cent of the Cambridge riding is made up of people of Portuguese origin. Being a Cambridge native, I have a strong affinity with these Portuguese people and indulge in being with them on many occasions at their various festivals. Even if my constituents are not personally affected by the situation the member for Hamilton East has attempted to correct, I am sure many of their friends and relatives are. Naturally, I am interested in legislation that would make life easier for these very hardworking people.

Having looked a lot closer at Bill 132 since that time, however, I have become very concerned about what happens when, in an attempt to protect a certain group of workers, we smother the very lifeblood of business itself. What happens to the jobs we are trying so hard to protect if business cannot flourish, if those who are providing employment opportunities are suffocated by increased regulatory burdens and we in effect outlaw the future subcontracting of work by union companies to nonunion firms?

This legislation to extend successor rights causes me and members of the business community grave concern. The member for Wellington South read out letters similar to the ones I have received. Like him, I meet with these business organizations on a regular basis in my position as our party's critic for small business.

While it is intended to extend to the employees of contractors rights other workers already have, protecting poorly paid immigrant women and enhancing the collective bargaining regime in the province, all of which are good things, the amendments to the act unduly restrict the freedom to contract; they create undue interference in the relationship between contractors and their employers and prevent the most efficient and productive use of our resources.

Of even greater concern to me is that this legislation works both upstream and downstream. By downstream, I mean a collective agreement, or a potential one, is passed down from an employer to a contractor through to a subsequent contractor. This is apparent and seems to be consistent with what the bill says. However, the upstream effect is a little unexpected. Because of the broad wording of subsection 63b(1) of this proposed act, should a person terminate a contract and assume the responsibility for the work himself, he will be in the same position as the contractor and accordingly can inherit bargaining rights.

In other words, a company that had contracted certain work to a union contractor terminated the contract and resumed doing the work itself, it would be bound by the contractor's collective agreement. Where one hires a contractor to do one's cleaning and then decides to give it to one's son or another person in the firm whose job may be becoming redundant, the union contract would fall on to that person.

In my opinion, it is rather scary stuff. Business owners will have to think twice about contracting out to union firms. I remind this assembly that subcontracting is a legitimate way of doing business in Ontario, whether or not unions are involved. Properly managed, subcontracting contributes significantly to the productivity and competitiveness of Canadian companies.

I am afraid passage of Bill 132 would serve to undermine the present and prospective livelihood of thousands of small businesses and result in reduced employment opportunities for those faced with the spectre of forced automatic union certification. The impact of such legislation would be most damaging to smaller, nonunionized, independent firms. Contracting to larger firms is the business base of thousands of smaller businesses, 90 per cent of them -- using the same figures and reading from the same hymn book as does the member for Wellington South -- 90 per cent of these small businesses are nonunionized and many of them gained their starting business by offering better value than the contracting firm could provide in-house.

10:40

I do not recall any private member's bill or, for that matter, even a government bill that has caused so much furore in the business community as Bill 132 has done. Unfortunately, it does not necessarily protect the workers. In summary, Bill 132 would serve to upset the labour-business equilibrium in our province, a province that has already, since the Liberal government came to power, seen more than its share of legislation which, taken together, works against and discourages business in general and small business in particular.

Bill 132 would inhibit employers and contractors from the freedom to contract work out legitimately. Bill 132 would limit the ability of contractors to bid on contracts because it would require them to use virtually the same workers and would bind them to the terms of a collective agreement they never entered into. Bill 132 would result in contractors being deprived of their right to recruit their own employees and of their ability to bargain their own terms of employment with these employees. Bill 132 would prevent an employer from cutting costs and would prevent the streamlining of operations leading to increased efficiency and greater productivity.

In effect, this proposed amendment to the Labour Relations Act provides protection to unions without affording greater job protection to workers or their employers. I urge all members of this assembly to be very leery of this piece of legislation. It goes far beyond what the member originally intended in all good conscience. I know what he originally intended, but this goes far beyond that. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is truly a piece of legislation that portrays something quite different from what it really is. I urge all members to vote against this piece of legislation.

Mr. McClellan: Talk about wolves in sheep's clothing. The wolf-like face of the Liberal Party of Ontario finally emerges clearly for everybody to see. All their rhetoric about their concern for those at the low end of the pay scale and all their professed concern about the plight of immigrant workers and underpaid workers is stripped away to protect the so-called sacred freedom of the business community to contract out. All that means is the freedom of business representatives such as the member for Wellington South and his colleagues in the Liberal Party to fire workers who have been able to win a collective agreement and achieve a descent standard of living and replace them with workers at the minimum wage.

This is the notion of freedom that comes from the Liberal Party of Ontario. I find it difficult to believe what I have heard in this debate this morning. When I was elected in September 1975, the very first thing that confronted me as a new representative was the cleaning staff at Queen's Park all being fired. The people who cleaned our offices at night were all being fired because the government of Ontario had tendered their contract and contracted it out to a private firm.

This was a union contract. Their union was being taken away from them. These were workers who were earning about $6 per hour. They were going to be paid the minimum wage under the new contract. These were our own offices right here in the Legislative Building. The very first thing that happened to me was that a community coalition came together to fight for those jobs and to force the government to back down.

However, the battle has not been won. As my colleague the member for Hamilton East pointed out, we are engaged in a series of firefighting exercises, trying to save the jobs of workers first at the Toronto-Dominion Centre, then at Olympia and York Developments Ltd., then at Conestoga College, then at the post office and in other parts of the Queen's Park complex. As workers have struggled to win basic rights that one assumes are accepted in a free democratic society -- the right to form a collective bargaining unit and to have one's own trade union -- one after another these rights are taken away from workers, their jobs are contracted out from under them, their unions are smashed and their wages are lowered to the level of the minimum wage.

I say again to my colleague the member for Wellington South that this kind of behaviour is acceptable perhaps in Poland from General Jaruzelski, but it is not acceptable in a democratic society. That kind of reactionary, Neanderthal, outdated social attitude has no place in the late 20th century in a democracy such as Canada. Workers have a right to trade unions, and the business community does not have a right to strip them of those unions through the process of contracting out or to strip them of their standard of living through the process of reducing their wages through the competitive bidding process.

The ultimate example of this kind of exploitation and injustice, which has mobilized a great coalition in this community of Metropolitan Toronto, is the plight of men and women working in the cleaning industry. One after another, over the last 20 years, workers in the cleaning industry have succeeded in very difficult circumstances in forming a union and raising their wages, not to some magnificent level, not to $13 or $15 an hour, or $17 or $18 an hour, wages and incomes that perhaps those of us in this assembly are more used to, but rather wages in the order of $5, $6, $7 or $8 an hour at the very most.

What happens with the process of contracting out is that their wages go back to the level of the minimum wage. The cleaning industry in this community, and I suspect in most communities across Ontario, is the modern equivalent of a sweatshop. It pays minimum wage. It has found a way of preventing its work force from forming trade unions to bargain for the betterment of their wages and working conditions. It thrives on the systematic exploitation of immigrant workers.

Members had better understand that. Those who are voting against this provision had better understand that this provision is the only way of stopping the exploitation of immigrant workers in our province.

The technique is not a new one. It is as old as immigration itself to this country. The process of exploitation of immigrant workers is intimately and inextricably linked with the process of preventing immigrant workers from joining trade unions and with the process of smashing their trade unions. I am using perhaps strong language, but it happens to be the truth. I am deliberately using strong language to try to make the point to those who say that the rights of the business community to do business in traditional ways in this province are paramount and sacrosanct and cannot be violated.

What about the rights of those who clean in the business firms? Do they not have a right to a decent standard of living? Are they to be condemned in perpetuity to work in an industry where the pressures on wages are always downwards, back down to the level of the minimum wage? Is the message of the Liberal Party of Ontario that the hundreds of thousands of men and women who have come to this country to make a better life for themselves and for their children cannot expect the protection of the law if they form a trade union, but can look forward to the government of Ontario encouraging their employers to drive down their wages, back to the level of the minimum wage? Is that the policy of the government and of the Liberal Party of Ontario?

10:50

In the short time remaining this morning, members had better think seriously about how they want to vote on this matter. As it affects cleaners, this has become an issue of symbolic importance for the Portuguese community of Metropolitan Toronto. There has been a great coalition put together behind this issue of fighting for the rights of cleaning workers, and it is something that has struck a responsive cord among those men and women who have come to this country from Portugal since the 1950s and 1960s. It has come to symbolize the kind of struggle that has faced them in this country. It also symbolizes an opening, a breakthrough and a way of achieving a decent standard of living, through working hard and through fighting for collective rights, not excessive rights but simply rights to a decent reward for their labour and to a decent standard of living for themselves and their children.

Anybody who argues that small business cannot survive a work force that is paid at the level of $6, $7 or $8 an hour is not making any sense. Anybody who says that small business in Ontario can survive only if it pays its work force at the level of the minimum wage is not making any sense. Who is going to buy their goods and products? What are they going to buy it with, if we do not have a well-paid work force? Who are going to be the customers of the small businessmen?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Your time has expired.

Mr. McClellan: I appeal in my final sentence to my colleagues in the Liberal Party to think twice before they slap so many people in the face.

Mr. Polsinelli: After the eloquent dissertation of the member for Bellwoods on the right of workers to unionize -- a right which, I believe, is not denied but encouraged by each member of this assembly -- it is incumbent on me to begin my remarks by again reiterating what the bill of the member for Hamilton East does. Bill 132 would amend the Labour Relations Act to prevent unionized companies from subcontracting to nonunionized firms for work which has been done by unionized workers. The nonunionized firm may be a subcontractor if it agrees to operate under the contractor's collective agreement and become unionized itself. This bill does not deal with the right of workers to unionize.

As a member of this assembly, I am troubled by the circumstances that led to the member's creation of this bill. I speak of those instances, well reported in this House, where cleaners were faced with the prospect of losing their jobs in situations of contracting out and contract tendering.

Many of us will remember the situation in March at First Canadian Place, where 250 unionized workers for Federated Building Maintenance Co. Ltd. saw their jobs threatened in a decision by the owner, Olympia and York, to tender the cleaning contract. I believe the resolve and intervention of the Premier and the Minister of Labour aided in saving those jobs.

As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, I share the concerns I know he continues to have for all workers facing job losses. I can only concur with those workers who mobilized into action in March and felt that changes were needed. Many of them are immigrants to this country and, as an immigrant myself, I share their sense of frustration in the wake of apparent injustices that must be confronted.

I do not believe Bill 132 is the solution. In many situations, it may exacerbate the problem. Many members of this assembly will know that the vast majority of the cleaners are not represented by unions and, as a result, those workers will be penalized severely by this bill. It will inevitably pit unionized workers against nonunionized workers. As a government, we have a responsibility to all workers, not just to unionized workers, and that responsibility cannot be forgotten.

Bill 132 would amend the Labour Relations Act so that the sale of businesses provisions contained in section 63 of the act would apply to cases of contracting out and contract tendering. The New Democrats have used the problems faced by the unionized cleaners to justify this bill.

The problems involve contract tendering and not contracting out. Moreover, the problems have arisen in cases where the work continues to be performed within the same establishment. Bill 132 would extend this to all sectors involved in contract tendering. To do so would severely hamper the auto parts industry, along with the construction industry. By their very nature, those sectors depend on this form of business activity.

Members should note that, by virtue of contracting out of service and maintenance work, cleaners in this province engage in work through their current employers. Further, on the issue of contracting out, unionized employees already enjoy the benefit of substantial protection. They do so through provisions that can be negotiated under collective agreements. This protection can take the form of a limitation of contracting out or simply of an absolute ban on any contracting out of work. The limitation or prohibition of contracting out can be enforced through the arbitration process.

Contracting out has also been dealt with under the Labour Relations Act. Recently, members will recall that in a landmark case in 1984 the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that an employer cannot contract out the core function without relinquishing control over that activity. I am not swayed by the argument of the member for Hamilton East that the bill was conceived to apply only to the service and health industries. Its wording leaves open its application to cover all aspects of contracting out and tendering. Its scope is too broad.

The reality of this bill is that it would cripple small businesses in all sectors of the economy that depend on larger firms farming out significant work their way. This bill would discourage bidding in contract work, and smaller concerns would not have the ability to compete in our own markets. It would also provide incentives to industry to have its production activity take place outside this province. In the wake of this, jobs in all sectors of our economy could conceivably be lost.

Another omission in this bill is that it does not adequately address the problem of a new contractor having an existing work force. Have the rights of such a contractor been forgotten or have they been taken into consideration at all by the member for Hamilton East?

Under the provisions of this bill, workers may not have jobs despite the fact that they have worked for an existing contractor for many years. That is an apparent injustice which is evident in this bill. If this appears unlikely to the member, he might well remember that even in the cleaning sector 95 per cent of the workers are not unionized. This bill does nothing to protect them. Essentially, what we have before us is a sledgehammer in Bill 132 that the opposition would use to kill a fly.

I reiterate that we are concerned about the plight of unionized cleaners and, indeed, all workers in this province, but the issues involved are too complex to be addressed by the approach this bill would have us adopt. The Minister of Labour and this government are currently engaged in the process that will see other measures introduced. The legislative initiatives that will be introduced will not only focus on the Labour Relations Act, but in a balanced and just way will enhance job security and the right to decent remuneration for workers in this province.

I feel that the appropriate way to address these concerns is a well-thought-out response that will not confuse contract tendering and successor rights. The Minister of Labour has well under way the process of reviewing the options available. Given the commitment of the minister and indeed of the Premier in assuring the resolution of this issue, I am sure this will be forthcoming in the not-too-distant future. I say to the critics in the third party and in the opposition that as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, I have been working with him in discussing the options available. I can assure this assembly that something will be introduced soon.

11:00

Mr. Gillies: We have about three seconds. I had a long speech prepared. Clearly, I am not going to be able to give it in the time remaining. I will be supporting the bill because of the principle enclosed therein, but I indicate to the member that if he had drafted a more specific piece of legislation aimed directly at the type of people we are trying to help, it would have had much wider support from our party. However, that can be amended in committee. I know what the member is trying to do, and I will support it.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

Mr. Epp moved resolution 5:

That this House authorizes that a proclamation be issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada amending section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to read as follows:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and urges that the Senate and House of Commons and the legislative assemblies of the other provinces do likewise.

Mr. Epp: It is a pleasure to deal with this motion today. I plan to use approximately 15 minutes initially and then use the remaining time to wind up at the end of the debate. In doing so and in starting my remarks, I thank the members for being present this morning. I know there are difficulties with the overlapping of committee responsibilities. I also thank the Ontario Real Estate Association, which has done a lot of work on this subject regarding property rights in the province. Thousands of agents and others feel very strongly that this should be included in the constitution.

I hope what we are about to do here today is to pass a resolution that will enshrine in the Constitution an omission everyone is aware of that took place in 1982, when the Canadian Constitution was drafted. The omission was of enshrining in the Constitution the enjoyment of property. To do this we require the Canadian government -- the House of Commons -- to pass a resolution that would enshrine property rights, the enjoyment of property, as well as seven other provinces representing 50 per cent of the population of Canada.

To date, British Columbia has passed such a resolution. I point out to my friends on both sides of the House that the resolution was passed unanimously with all parties participating and voting in favour of it. A somewhat minor-amended version was passed by the Legislature in New Brunswick and by the Yukon Territory, which adopted the same resolution I have before the House today, and it was adopted by the BC Legislature.

It might be helpful to point out to the members that democracy has been based upon and has thrived upon four basic rights. These rights are life, liberty, security and the enjoyment of property. At this point, the charter protects only the first three; it excludes the right to hold property. It might also be opportune to point out that the fathers of the Canadian Constitution, at a later date, included in the Constitution the continuation of a heritage of freedom; so that since the original Constitution at least another amendment has been made to the Constitution.

The personal right to property has been constantly reaffirmed throughout history in the courts and in the common and statute law of the United Kingdom, from whom we inherited our basic laws. It was reaffirmed in our country in 1960, when the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker introduced the Bill of Rights, which was adopted by the House of Commons and by the Canadian people at that time. I might also point out that property rights were proposed for inclusion in the charter during the hearings of the special joint Senate-Commons committee but were later withdrawn by the federal government. It is my hope that this will be one more link eventually to get the enjoyment of property aspect into the Canadian Constitution.

The importance of protecting the individual property owner and allowing such property owners to have an opportunity to protect their rights in court is the basis of this resolution. It would protect property owners against unnecessary or unfair government actions against their property. The amendment protects against unjust infringement of an individual's rights. That is something that Canada has always stood for and something that is obviously lacking in the present Constitution.

The amendment is vital as a symbolic affirmation of Canada's and Ontario's heritage as well as a statement of our national intention to adhere to that tradition.

I know there are a number of people who have some fears with respect to this amendment, and I want to deal with some of those fears at this time. There are fears with regard to zoning laws, expropriation laws and family law dealing with the division of property on marriage breakdown. These appear to be unfounded.

Regarding zoning laws, the Canadian Bar Association and its Ontario branch have dealt with all these aspects in committees thereof. In May 1985, the CBA Ontario branch's property rights entrenchment committee issued a report which found no existing government scheme would be prevented or seriously impeded by the inclusion of the words "enjoyment of property." The CBA report makes that clear.

The protection afforded by entrenchment of the rights recognized in section 7 of the charter is not absolute, and all such rights are subject to the provisions of section 1 of the charter. Section 1 of the charter reads as follows:

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

If that is the case, this section must be kept in mind in reassessing the potential impact of the entrenchment of property rights upon the ability of legislators to enact laws concerning natural resources, environmental or land use planning. Legislation dealing with any subject matter that imposes only reasonable limits upon property rights will be unaffected by entrenchment.

The CBA report points out that, in the United States, legislatures and government agencies have been able to enact and enforce zoning and environmental protection laws despite the provisions of amendments 5 and 14 of the US Constitution.

Amendment 5 of the US Constitution provides, in part: "nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Amendment 14 provides: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

11:10

The government of British Columbia, in passing its resolution, considered all these aspects. As I indicated, it adopted the resolution unanimously.

Let me deal with another concern that people have; it has to do with women's rights. Some concern has been expressed that the addition of property rights to the charter would somehow harm the matrimonial property legislation across Canada which provides for the division of assets upon divorce or separation.

The US Constitution has been in existence for 210 years, while ours has existed since 1982. The fifth amendment is part of the US Constitution, as is the fourth amendment, which has been there for 195 years. Where state constitutions contain similar provisions, no statutes providing for the division of property upon a dissolution of marriage have ever been held unconstitutional.

I want to emphasize that. Some of the people who want to throw red herrings in the face of not including property rights in our Constitution keep on saying that the women's rights movement in the US has been set back because of the US Constitution. There is absolutely no evidence to support that contention; it is a red herring. No statute providing for the division of property upon the dissolution of marriage has ever been held to be unconstitutional. That is important.

An additional safeguard the US Constitution does not include, but that we have in Canada, is section 1 of our charter, which "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

What judges often do in looking at constitutional matters in Canada is to refer to section 1. I emphasize that section 1 is the most important section in our Constitution; it has to be subject to that. Where in the US no state laws dealing with these matters have been found to be unconstitutional, in Canada we have the added protection of section 1. The Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of Upper Canada have recognized that in supporting this amendment.

We are looking for the passage of this amendment. We want people to know that the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution is very important to us. I want to cite two examples of where there has been real abuse with respect to property rights. We have hundreds of authorities in government for the expropriation of property. We have all the conservation authorities. We have the provincial government, the federal government and the municipal governments. We have 839 municipal governments in Ontario. There are hundreds of authorities, and I suspect more than 1,000, if we were to count them. What we want to do by passing this resolution is to put some kind of protection out there for the people themselves.

I want to cite two cases, copies of which members have received at their desks. These were kindly made available by the Ontario Real Estate Association, which put out a tape on this as well as some literature.

First, I want to cite the case of Mr. and Mrs. Ludwig Fromm, who had a piece of property not far from here, at McCaul and College streets; in fact, it fronts on McCaul Street. The case took place on July 31, 1975, when they owned Gordon's Take-Out Service and Delicatessen. They owned the place, lived upstairs and were somewhat in arrears with their payment for the premises, but that in itself had nothing to do with the way they were treated. They catered to a lot of people in the vicinity, and it was a fairly economically viable operation; it supported the couple and their family.

They were told they had to move, and they were promised a certain amount of money by Ontario Hydro. The gist of this was that they were forced out of this property. They had 2,600 square feet in the building, and they were forced out because Ontario Hydro wanted to use it for a station. The Ontario Hydro property division wanted to acquire the parcel of land to build the transformer station it wanted to put on that location.

The Fromms had to move from that location and were partly compensated for it; they got a $186,000 settlement. They felt that with their legal costs and so forth, they were out at least $5,000. They subsequently moved north, to Gravenhurst, to relocate their restaurant. That did not work out for them, because they were subject there to such elements as people not frequenting their place as often as they did down here. Subsequently, they sold it, lost about $40,000 or $50,000 and moved away from their Gravenhurst restaurant location.

The important point is that no one had to justify why he wanted to buy this take-out service and delicatessen, and the place still sits empty today; it has been boarded up and painted. The Fromms could have continued their operation until this date, 11 years later. Ontario Hydro took it without having to justify to anyone why it wanted it. They compensated the Fromms, I admit that, to the extent of $186,000, but they did not have to justify it to anyone, and it is still not used for a transformer station or anything else. These people have been deprived of a livelihood because somebody, on a whim, wanted that property without having to justify it. I do not think that is fair.

With this, we are saying that if the government wants to expropriate property, it has to be able to justify it before the courts if the person who is being expropriated is not in agreement with the amount of money he is being given for compensation. Aside from the financial loss, it is a real trauma to lose such property.

I want to cite one other case, and these are only two of eight cases the Ontario Real Estate Association has listed; there are hundreds of others that could be dealt with.

In 1950, Highway 400 was being built north of Toronto, and a gentleman by the name of Jack Teskey had a large farm there. From 1958 to 1977, there were several expropriations of his land. Mr. Teskey eventually got a cheque from the then Ministry of Transport, now the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, for $10,200. He never cashed the cheque, because he felt he was really done in by this provincial ministry. Originally, the Minister of Transport offered him $3,100. When he went to the Ontario Municipal Board, he was given $10,200; so one knows how much the ministry was originally short in offering a certain amount of money.

Eventually, Mr. Teskey died, and the case has still not been resolved. It is another example of where government has run roughshod over an individual and the individual had no recourse to the courts to prevent it taking away important and valuable property for him and his family. This is what this resolution will do. People will have recourse to courts, where they can be heard and their rights protected.

I am going to save the remaining time to wind up later on in the morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Two minutes and 38 seconds have been reserved by the member for Waterloo North.

11:20

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to speak in support of the resolution of the member for Waterloo North, a resolution which will provide for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to state that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

The member's resolution would introduce into the Charter of Rights one of the four basic rights of democracy in Canada, which are the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security of the person and the right to property. These are the four cornerstones upon which our Freedom depends and which have allowed us in Canada to build one of the fairest, most progressive and prosperous countries in the world.

I suggest that our society is composed largely of an immigrant population, people who came from democratic societies where property rights were a hallmark and where they expected their rights and freedoms, including their right to property, to continue. Certainly, many immigrants have come to these shores, to this great country, because certain rights and freedoms were denied in their own countries, particularly the right and freedom of owning and enjoying property.

Originally, when the Charter of Rights was drafted, the right to enjoyment of property, which could not be denied except by due process of law, was included in the charter. Unfortunately, the right to enjoyment of property was deleted at that time, mainly because of the concern expressed by the provincial governments of Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan, which were concerned that their ability to legislate on land ownership and other matters of property falling within their constitutional jurisdiction would be restricted. I think Prince Edward Island was concerned about the purchasing of large tracts of land by nonresidents or non-Canadians.

There are concerns about the entrenchment of the enjoyment of property rights in the charter, but I think these concerns can be addressed and, on balance, the right to enjoyment of property, as the member for Waterloo North has suggested, should be entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights.

People came to these shores because of the freedom our life offers. Certainly the tradition of property rights is one of long standing in this country and one which, I submit, is a great strength, not only to the country but also to the whole fabric of society, to the family unit. Property rights are important.

The right to own property has been recognized down through the years and has been very eloquently addressed from time to time. In 1760, in the British House of Commons, there was the elegant statement of William Pitt: "The poorest man may in his cottage do defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter. All his force dares not cross the threshold."

Further, James Wilson, one of the original justices of the United States Supreme Court and a signatory to the United States Declaration of Independence, stated: "The right of private property is founded in the nature of men and things. What belongs to no one is wasted by everyone. What belongs to one man in particular is the object of his economy and care. Exclusive property prevents disorder and promotes peace."

This feeling has been reaffirmed throughout history in the courts and in the common law and statutes of the United Kingdom and the United States, and it is a tradition of the Canadian common law.

The Canadian Real Estate Association has further emphasized the need for the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution during the hearings of the joint Senate-House committee. It is concerned that the failure to include property rights in the Charter of Rights is a serious threat to the fabric of Canadian society. The association has painted a somewhat dark spectre of increasing government regulation and control of ownership in the absence of entrenched property rights. CREA has warned that property rights are being eroded and are in dire need of protection and has pointed out that more than 700 provincial statutes in Ontario alone affect property.

I will present two examples of the effect on property. I point to Mariano versus South Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority. Frank Mariano and his wife bought a 113-year-old building on the main street of Uxbridge, 40 miles northeast of Toronto. They obtained a building permit to add an addition to the property and had undertaken $100,000 worth of renovations when they were told to stop construction by the conservation authority in the area. They applied for a permit to the South Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority and were denied one. After having invested a couple of hundred thousand dollars in a building that had stood for 113 years, these people were in dire straits.

There are many examples of the sometimes unfair effects of conflicting laws. In the city of St. Catharines, Charles Fullerton, a prominent lawyer in that area and a former partner of mine, represented Felix Rizzardo in an appeal against the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal to allow a building permit on a one-acre property that had been owned by the gentleman in question for 28 years.

After hearing the facts, the hearing officer made this comment: "In considering all the facts put forth at the hearing, one has to have consideration for Mr. Deacon," who was the person buying the property, "who did have a building permit 28 years ago and commenced a home only to be thwarted by the unfortunate circumstances of his wife's health. He is not financially set to go to the expense of engineering consultants for reports on this and that. However, the development of the property is possible, but not using the present excavation. If the purchaser were to submit a proper site plan to accommodate the natural contours, it could be acceptable."

Although the hearing officer denied the request, he suggested there could be a reapplication. This is another example of why there has to be law to protect those cases which, on the face of them, are quite unfair.

There is some concern that entrenching property rights could lead to an attack on much of the social legislation that is in place, but as the member for Waterloo North has stated, that will not happen, because the extension of the rights is always subject to such a reasonable limit as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Finally, it is important that we support this resolution and entrench in the Canadian Charter of Rights the right to enjoyment of property so that the traditions we have enjoyed over the years can continue and we can know that protection is there.

11:30

Mr. Laughren: I rise in opposition to this resolution. I do not think that will be any surprise to the member for Waterloo North. As a matter of fact, it is because I am such a nice guy that I rise in opposition to this resolution.

It is appropriate that he brought it forth because it is the kind of issue that needs to be debated in this chamber. I remind the member, however, that we are not talking about just changing a law, but about entrenching a value system in our Constitution. That is much more significant than simply changing a law through an amendment to the Canadian Constitution.

It is a very fundamental law, which I am certain would limit the power of parliaments to act at both the federal and provincial levels. For that reason, we should not engage in nice-sounding rhetoric simply to justify an argument that is going to change something as fundamental as a value system in our country. That is what this does.

I want to remind the member that the rights to property are already deeply entrenched in our system through common law, through contracts that are individual in nature and contracts with the state. The rights to private property are very deeply embedded and, in my view, do not need to be and indeed should not be entrenched in our Constitution.

Property rights should continue to be embedded in contract law on an individual and circumstantial basis, but I do not believe they should be entrenched in the Constitution. In other words, it is a legal right, but I do not think it should be classified as a political right, which it would be if it was entrenched in the Constitution.

It should be understood by people who say, "Property rights; yes, of course, everybody has a right to own property," that this would go much beyond that. It does much more than guarantee someone the right to own a home. If that is all it did, there would be no sense in bringing forth the resolution because that is already there. People have a right to own a home, unless the bank takes it away from them.

I did not realize how devious the member for Waterloo North is. This is an attempt to prevent the banks from expropriating property from ordinary working people and from taking farms away from farmers. I hope the member understands what he is doing. Otherwise, the National Citizens' Coalition will be on his doorstep tomorrow for limiting the property rights of banks to repossess farms and homes.

The member talked about the US constitution having property rights entrenched in it, but there have been problems in the US with property rights. For example, the right to regulate freight rates was challenged and the government was prevented from regulating freight rates. As well, the whole question of mortgages was raised in the US and the courts prevented farmers from postponing mortgage payments because of property rights of the banks.

While I was teasing the member a bit, it is true that the financial institutions in this country and others confiscate more property than governments ever have in North America. If that is what the member is trying to do, he should deal with the banks and other financial institutions in separate legislation and not try to do it through the Constitution.

In Canada, we have a long history of regulating the private sector. If we were to entrench property rights, I wonder about our right to regulate the airlines and phone company rates. There is the long history of that, accepted even by the phone company. Bell Canada accepts the fact that it has to go before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and justify its rates.

The member has brought forth an amendment that would have much more impact than even he would want it to have. That bothers me a great deal. I think of the right of doctors to extra bill. The present government just completed a bill in the past several months that prevents doctors from extra billing. If I read this section right and interpret it correctly, the doctors would be able to challenge that right to extra bill under this amendment to the Constitution, if it were passed.

I believe that is true. I think developers could challenge the right of regulations on their property, because it is a property right to --

Mr. Ferraro: How did you make that out?

Mr. Laughren: It is. Take the example of expropriating property for a pipeline. When the Saskatchewan government expropriated -- I should not say "expropriated"; it negotiated and paid a very good price -- nevertheless, it took the potash companies under public ownership. If this country decided it wanted to bring into the public sector another major oil company or to have it join Petro-Canada, the oil company could very well challenge that, and probably successfully, if this were part of the Constitution.

That is inappropriate. If this were entrenched in the Constitution, there would be nothing to prevent the Reichmanns from buying Prince Edward Island. In Prince Edward Island, they are already trying to cope with American ownership of their island. I do not think they could prevent it if this were entrenched in the Constitution.

The member shakes his head, but I believe that to be true. I am only half kidding when I say I keep expecting the Reichmanns or the Bronfmans to make an offer on Prince Edward Island.

This amendment would reintroduce privilege back into our political system in a way that we have been trying to do away with over the past number of decades. As all members understand, universal suffrage was the most important way in which we, as a society, tried to eliminate privilege. If this is entrenched in the Constitution, it will indeed entrench a privileged position for property owners, and not everybody in society is a property owner. I do not think we are trying to make it a more privileged system.

It would not be the small property owner who would be protected by this amendment; it would be the large property owners who would be protected, and everyone should understand that. New Democrats see our society as moving away from this kind of direction and raising civil liberties and human rights, as opposed to property rights, to a higher level. Make no mistake about it. One is in opposition to the other. That is how it will finally shake down and that is why we are so adamantly opposed to it.

Members should not forget that we, as a society, and all of us, I believe, are supportive of more equality in our society; at least when I listen to the speakers that is what I hear. But I remind members that it was not so long ago when people were property, slaves were property, wives were the property of their husbands and children were the property of their fathers. We are trying to move away from that as far as we can.

We believe that working people have the right to refuse unsafe work; yet the employer could argue that it was his property right, that place of work, and he could challenge that right. We have to understand that we cannot support property rights and at the same time pretend that we are putting consumer rights and individual rights up high on the agenda as well. You cannot have it both ways.

If this member comes back to this chamber with a resolution to guarantee the right to a job, to housing, to medical service and to income to people of this province and this country; when he has accomplished that; when he has convinced the Liberal Party and governments across this country -- they have not supported it yet; as a matter of fact, the federal Liberal government opposed this -- when that has been done, then the member for Waterloo North should come back to this chamber and say: "I have accomplished something, my colleagues. I have entrenched in the Constitution the right for every citizen to enjoy income, to enjoy housing, to enjoy medical services and to have a job."

When the member has accomplished that, when he has raised that to the level of being entrenched in the Constitution, at that point he can come to us and see whether he can talk us into entrenching property rights. I do not think he will; I do not think he could talk us into that, but I would like to see him get the others in there. Perhaps I could use that as the motivation for him to succeed. When he has succeeded in entrenching more civil liberties and human rights in the Constitution, then he can come and talk to us about property rights.

11:40

Mr. Ferraro: It is a pleasure to rise in support of the motion of my colleague the member for Waterloo North to entrench property rights. I know it is going to make my friends in the third party happy to have to listen to me twice in one day, but that is the way the agenda presented itself.

I wholeheartedly concur with my colleague the member for Waterloo North and many other colleagues in the House that property rights should be entrenched in the Charter of Rights. Much of what I am going to say will be to some degree a reiteration of what other speakers who have spoken in support of it have said, because there are only a few basic arguments that can be made. I ask the indulgence of the House in this regard.

My friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) made a couple of assertions that I obviously interpret in a different way. He talked about his fear that entrenching these property rights would be imposing a value system. He also talked about extra billing being somehow related to property rights. He lost me there. I do not want to deal with that one as I cannot see the relationship. The value system that members of the New Democratic Party talk about is obviously a different interpretation of my value system, which is democracy. That is the ultimate value system.

In 1215, Magna Carta was passed. As has been mentioned by many other members, essentially four basic rights came from our British heritage, the rights to life, liberty, security and property. As we know, the Charter of Rights unfortunately did not include the fourth right, the right to property, when it was passed in 1982. As has been mentioned, it is interesting that it was an integral part of the Bill of Rights in 1960. Indeed, our democracy has flourished well considering these basic rights and inherent parts of democracy and freedom.

It is also interesting to note that notwithstanding what the New Democratic Party of Ontario feels, in 1983 the New Democratic Party in the British Columbia Legislature, along with the Social Credit Party, voted and unanimously supported the entrenchment of property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Obviously, there is some confusion in the New Democratic Party philosophy.

We end up talking about a complexity of rights. Why it has to be in the Charter of Rights, notwithstanding the fact that it is in the Bill of Rights, can be argued. What we are talking about, as we all know, is that the Bill of Rights pertains essentially to federal legislation. The Charter of Rights empowers the courts to scrutinize provincial legislation to a greater degree. The Bill of Rights extends its protection only to individuals. The charter protects everyone. I know this will make the third party very angry, but this would include corporations as well as natural persons. I might say that not all corporations are the size of Olympia and York or those of the Bronfmans. There are a lot of small corporations in this country and more and more are being registered, something like 100,000 every year. A lot of small people, small businessmen incorporate.

As to the complexity of rights I talked about, it has been argued that we do not have to put this in the Charter of Rights because by not having it in the Charter of Rights, even though the foundation of our country was based on the Bill of Rights that secured that basic right, we are protected because individual pieces of legislation will protect us, as my friend the member for Nickel Belt said.

By this he means that, for example, we could pass a bill in Ontario that would protect property owners from expropriation. Others will argue that by not putting it in the Charter of Rights you are not saying there are not property rights and you are leaving it open for much more small-l liberal interpretation by the legislators and the judicial system in our country. Why do we want to tie their hands and limit that?

That is the real crux of the issue: why it should be in. It is not only because we had it in our Bill of Rights, which is essentially being replaced by the Charter of Rights, but also because constitutional experts -- I mentioned two, Penny Hill and Peter Hogg -- have said:

"Constitutional entrenchment implies a hierarchy of rights in which those entrenched have superior" -- I reiterate "superior" -- "force to those contained only in legislation. The bottom line is that nonentrenched rights of equal social and political significance are always subordinate to entrenched rights."

For that reason, it must be put in the Constitution. It must be returned to its place of prominence as a cornerstone of our democracy and our country.

The second and final reason -- I want to mention only two -- is one the member for Brock (Mr. Partington) touched on. As we know, Canada is a multicultural nation composed largely of immigrants, people such as my father, many other members of my community and, I am sure, other members in this House. The strength of this country and of this province is the fact that immigrants came to this country between the 1920s and 1950s with the hope that the democratic principles they left behind would be secure in this country and indeed enhanced.

Many immigrants came to this country because their homeland did not include those rights. Canada was a place of opportunity, a place of democracy. It meant the freedom that many of them did not have. It meant they would have the chance to grow in this country and, with God's help, to raise a family, possibly to start their own business and indeed to take great pride in owning some property. That is essentially what it is; aside from the economic aspects of it, it is a matter of pride.

Most of us in this House own some property, some more than others. I myself, with my wife and family, have a house. I take great pride in that. It is a nice feeling. I take more pride in the fact that I have some equity than I do when I consider the mortgage I still have on my house, but it is a good feeling. Having been a mortgage manager for 13 ½ years before I came into this House, I saw and experienced the joy and pride that many of these immigrants and young people experience when they own some property.

I am conscious that this is something very basic to human nature. I wish every Canadian could own some property. I think it is the duty of parliamentarians as legislators to assist in that regard to the best ability that God has given us. Unfortunately, that cannot always be done. Members of the third party would argue that no one should own any property; the government should own it all. Unfortunately, I disagree with that.

The people in my riding of Guelph are conscious of this right, extremely so, and in particular my many friends and acquaintances associated with the Guelph and District Real Estate Board. While they have an economic reason to promote real estate and property rights, I truly believe the real motivation is based on their belief that our democratic country was built on this inherent right, along with the other three.

I want to conclude by saying that now is the time for us to reconfirm the fourth cornerstone of democracy. Now is the time to re-establish many of the foundations that the immigrants, the new Canadians, thought they were coming to when they came to our great country. I wholeheartedly support the enshrinement of property rights in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I wish to encourage all members of this House to support this very basic and important cornerstone of democracy.

11:50

Mr. Jackson: It is a privilege for me to rise from my seat today to respond to this excellent motion. For me, it is a matter of personal conviction. Prior to my entrance to this House, I was a member for 16 years of the real estate profession in this province. I was actively involved with the Ontario Real Estate Association in developing its private property week program and the entrenchment of this resolution. Several years ago, during that time, I had the privilege of meeting the member for Waterloo North for the first time, and I was very much impressed by his early commitment and sensitivity to this very important issue.

Today is Thanksgiving for our neighbours to the immediate south, and one of the prayers of thanksgiving they will be giving tonight is for the fact that in their Declaration of Independence and in their Constitution exists the very right we are addressing in this House today. Indeed, those who know the history of our great province and our great nation are aware that many of the very first Canadians who settled here were persecuted in their own countries because they believed strongly in certain rights. They came to this country and this province for that reason.

They put up with domestic hostilities, with the elements, with natural disasters. As the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) and I are all too keenly aware, there were even foreign invaders in our home town of Stoney Creek. They worked hard, and after all, there was the land. They toiled to clear the land to build an agricultural future and destiny for this province. At the end of each working day, these people had a feeling of pride and reverence for the land, which could not be removed. It was a bond that existed for them, and it represented a right they had. It helped to build this province and this nation.

Our forefathers could never have dreamed in their philosophies that the greatest threat to their land was yet to come. That was what we have seen evolve over the past 50 to 100 years in the way of the tremendous government intervention and the intrusion into basic human rights with respect to the reasonable enjoyment and privacy of their property.

It is clear that former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker felt that this was a historical and inalienable right, and it was included in the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights of 1960. There is one noteworthy subtle difference between that charter and the proposal represented by the member for Waterloo North. That reference is, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law." The subtle change which the member has brought to his resolution reinforces and perhaps makes more contemporary the statement that was first made by John Diefenbaker.

I am somewhat concerned at the statement by the member for Nickel Belt. While I feel an abiding respect for him, it is frightening when we can hear in this chamber reference to a privilege being inserted for a basic human right and then there is a rationalization by members of the third party to try to remove the privilege from Ontario's citizens. That is a frightening concept.

The members of this chamber have been introduced to much of the hard work that the Ontario Real Estate Association has provided in regard to this issue in the past six to seven years. They are aware of the fact that the association, through an independent study by professors at the University of Western Ontario, helped to develop a document called Losing Ground. This was a completely independent study. It documented that more than 700 laws or parts of laws in one way or another placed restrictions on how property owners could use or enjoy their property.

We all agree that many laws are necessary and acceptable in a free, democratic society. However, some create confusion and intrusion into basic human rights. I had the privilege of representing the Ontario Real Estate Association on the Taylor Flood Plain Review Committee to examine how our conservation authorities, under the mandate they were operating with, were able to sterilize large tracts of land without meaningful consultation with the owners or even the municipalities. That is one example, and many others have been referred to in this House during the debate on this bill.

Aside from that, there was also the Fault Protection Act, which limits a farmer's opportunities to sell his property if he so desires. There are several of these laws.

This resolution calls for fairness and for bringing back a balance into the charter, and we hope we will have this amendment in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Canada's Thanksgiving next year.

In conclusion, I encourage all members to support the resolution of the member for Waterloo North, because the preservation of the rights to private property is the very keystone of the arch upon which all civilized governments rest.

Mr. Epp: Very quickly, I want to sum up some concerns I have. In doing that, I want to thank the member for Brock, the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro), the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) and the member for Nickel Belt, despite the fact that he was negative with respect to this resolution.

I want to deal with two or three aspects very quickly. One is his assertion that even the Reichmanns could then buy Prince Edward Island. As he and I know, this cannot be the case unless they decide to buy one parcel at a time and the laws of Prince Edward Island were to permit that. This resolution would not allow the Reichmanns --

Mr. Rae: No. You are wrong. It would have precedence over any provincial legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the members will show some respect to the member who is speaking.

Mr. Epp: For the member for York South, I want to quote a section of the Constitution which says:

If he is trying to say the fathers of the Constitution would allow the Reichmanns to expropriate Prince Edward Island, he is off in left field, and he knows it.

The other thing I want to say is that we are protecting people's rights here. We are not protecting property in the sense that it is property; we are protecting people's rights to hold property. That is the distinction that has to be made. It is people we are concerned about, and the members have to understand that.

I will cite very quickly the various organizations that support this: the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Ontario Real Estate Association and the Canadian Institute of Planners. Various countries have also supported property rights entrenchment: Italy, West Germany, Sweden and Finland.

I reiterate to my friends across the way that British Columbia supported this, and that included all the NDP members in BC. The NDP members here are building a great valley between themselves and their colleagues in BC.

Mr. Mantel: All the right wing.

Mr. Speaker: If I could have the attention of the members, particularly that of the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), the appropriate procedure now is to place the questions.

12:06 p.m.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Mackenzie's motion for second reading of Bill 132, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Foulds, Gigantes, Gillies, Gordon, Hennessy, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Morin-Strom, Philip, Pouliot, Rae, Reville, Swart, Warner, Wildman.

Nays

Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bossy, Brandt, Callahan, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Dean, Epp, Ferraro, Fulton, Grandmaître, Gregory, Guindon, Haggerty, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Knight, Lane, McLean, McNeil, Miller, G. I, Morin, Newman, Partington, Pollock, Polsinelli, Rowe, Runciman, Sheppard, Smith, D. W., Sorbara, South, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, Villeneuve, Ward.

Ayes 23; nays 41.

12:15

PROPERTY RIGHTS

The House divided on Mr. Epp's motion of resolution 5, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bossy, Brandt, Callahan, Cordiano, Dean, Epp, Ferraro, Fulton, Gillies, Gordon, Grandmaître, Gregory, Guindon, Haggerty, Harris, Henderson, Hennessy, Jackson, Johnson, J. M.;

Knight, Lane, Mancini, McFadden, McLean, McNeil, Miller, G. I, Morin, Newman, Partington, Pollock, Rowe, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sheppard, Smith, D. W., South, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, Villeneuve.

Nays

Allen, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Foulds, Gigantes, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Morin-Strom, Philip, Pouliot, Rae, Reville, Sorbara, Swart, Warner, Wildman.

Ayes 44; nays 20.

The House recessed at 12:19 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Turner: I would like to draw to the attention of members of the House a matter that is of prime concern to the constituents of the Peterborough riding and the Peterborough area as such.

In May 1986, I spoke to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) about a problem that was perceived on the construction of the four-laning of Highway 115 between Highway 401 to the south and Peterborough to the north. The minister replied on November 21, and I received the letter yesterday. Frankly, I was disappointed, dismayed, shocked and finally angered at the response he gave me.

In spite of commitments by the previous government and the demonstrated need for the four-laning of this highway, the minister has stated very clearly in his letter that the remainder of the work between Highways 7A and 35, a distance of 21 kilometres, at an estimated cost of $27 million, is not in the five-year construction program. I find this totally unacceptable and so do the people of the Peterborough riding.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Morin-Strom: When is this Toronto-based Liberal government going to wake up and do something about northern Ontario? There really are two economies in this province. Since the Liberals came into office 17 months ago, the economy in southern Ontario has continued to grow, while across the north we have gone in the opposite direction. Plants are closing and layoffs are increasing. No new development is occurring. The unemployment rate in northern Ontario is nearly double that in the south.

What has the government done? Very little except for studies and reports, conferences and media events. The government is looking at options for saving the 1,500 jobs threatened at the Goodyear plant in Metro Toronto, but there was never any commitment to do anything about the 1,500 workers losing their jobs at Algoma Steel. Tens of millions of dollars are committed to auto plants in communities across southern Ontario, but nothing is done to bring new industry to northern Ontario.

The lumber industry is in a state of siege. Hundreds of workers are out of work across the north as we offer the Americans first 10 per cent, now 15 per cent, and who knows where it will end. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) looks good by kicking the Prime Minister's incompetence at negotiating, but the Premier has not acted to help those communities that are suffering.

The New Democrats have laid out a 10-point program to help the north. The ideas are not new. They have been endorsed by northerners time and time again, in the Fahlgren report, in the Rosehart report and even in Liberal campaign promises. This government has responded with a zero-point program. We need this government to do something for the north now.

SHORELINE PROTECTION

Mr. McGuigan: It is my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to this Legislature a group of very dedicated men who over the past summer and fall have contributed their services to the people of Ontario. In the gallery today are Shannon Olsen, Ray Lavereau, Roger Vermeulen, John Plyley, Dr. Reid Kreutzwiser and our consultant, Doug Hodgins of MacLaren Plansearch, who along with the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) and myself formed the Shoreline Management Review Committee.

The gentlemen I have mentioned were very much interested and involved in the plight many Great Lakes shoreline communities are facing now and have faced over the past couple of years. While working as their chairman, I recognized immediately the value of their experience and insight. These men have all proven their dedication to assisting the government of Ontario in minimizing the damage and hardship that erosion, high water and storm flooding can cause and have caused.

Our report, which was delivered to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) earlier this month, culminated nearly eight months of speaking with the public and many hours of reviewing technical submissions.

When it is released, the committee's report will prove to those of this House who questioned our appointment that our intention was to give recommendations designed to be practical, beneficial, responsible and, above all, nonpolitical.

As this government wanted, the recommendations are for the good of all Ontarians.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr. Hennessy: I address my statement to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. He probably does not want to hear this, but I can only hope it will jolt him into having immediate action taken on this important matter.

This year alone, which for the minister's benefit is 1986, there have been 68 traffic accidents on the Thunder Bay Expressway. These personal injury and property damage accidents have occurred at 10 intersections along the expressway.

For the minister's information, I will tell him why these accidents happened. Drivers enter the Thunder Bay Expressway at highway speeds, unaware that they will shortly encounter numerous intersections controlled only by amber lights. Drivers turning into the expressway have to take their chances on whether they will live to make the turn.

Why will the minister not listen to the corporation of the city of Thunder Bay? Why will the minister not listen to the Thunder Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association? Why will the minister not listen to the people of Thunder Bay in the north? We need concrete highway dividers. We need advance signal change warning lights about a quarter of a mile away from the intersections to warn drivers that the signal ahead will be changing. We need extra vapour lights along the expressway so that people can see what is ahead.

The minister's lack of determination and leadership is killing the people in Thunder Bay. We expect some action on the expressway problem.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I want to make another statement about the swamp. My friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) saw a bill go through committee several weeks ago, second reading of a bill on behalf of the city of Windsor. In addition to a number of other things, it included right-to-know legislation for the city of Windsor. The city wanted it and the committee passed it. Apparently, the minister would not allow the bill to be called for third reading; so the government House leader had to send it back to committee to have that part eliminated.

This is the man who says he represents labour. The Windsor area has the highest incidence of illness and sickness in Ontario. This Minister of Labour knew full well that the bill contained a sunset clause whereby the Windsor bill would die when the federal legislation came into existence. This Minister of Labour withdrew that protection for people in the Windsor area to have right-to-know legislation in place from this day forward, and who were prepared to allow that legislation to die once the federal legislation was in place.

This Minister of Labour is an absolute disgrace.

LIBERAL-NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACCORD

Mr. Henderson: I rise to inform the House that the accord is alive and well. I thank the leader of the third party the member for York South (Mr. Rae) for the very kind letter I received from him yesterday. The member welcomes me to the only party that is on my side and puts my interests first, the Ontario New Democratic Party. What a pleasure it is to hear those words. I need all the help I can get.

Some doctors in Ontario have despaired of finding a political party on their side. They have a friend in the member for York South. I broke the news to some, and I would not be here long were I to quote their responses.

The member goes on to say: "We have brought the Liberal horse to the well. It still does not want to drink." I know just how he feels, and yet he should be so lucky to have gotten it there. I too tried to bring the Liberal horse to the well, and it would not drink for me either.

I am truly delighted to learn that the third party is on my side and puts my interests first. No other party has ever made that claim. This is the accord at its very finest.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Stevenson: The delay in highway construction is causing a serious problem in my riding as well. The delay in building Highway 89 south of Lake Simcoe, and in particular east of Lake Simcoe, has caused congestion and confusion in the area.

More important, along Highway 48, through the village of Virginia and near the Morning Glory Public School, we have a real traffic problem with heavy trucks passing on the right-hand shoulder and causing a great deal of concern among local travellers and parents whose children are coming and going from that school.

We have had two meetings regarding this issue, and so far there is still no positive move from the minister. The people would like to see this problem clarified.

13:39

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hon. Mr. Scott: Later today I will introduce for first reading the Members' Standards of Office Act, 1986. Last July, the Premier spoke to the assembly about conflict of interest and set in motion a process to review the current guidelines and to consider proposals for reform. The Honourable John Black Aird kindly agreed to carry out the task and presented his report to the Premier in September.

The bill I introduce today recognizes the need for legislated standards. It adopts the basic wisdom of the approach recommended by Mr. Aird. The bill has four elements.

First, a clear, comprehensive and objective definition of a conflict of interest is provided and a concise code of conduct for members established. Second, a broad disclosure rule is declared for all assembly members, their spouses and minor children. Third, a system is established to make available to members, advice that they can follow with confidence and certainty. Fourth, a method to determine and sanction breaches of the standard is established.

Although Mr. Aird's recommendations were directed to ministers, we propose to extend most standards to all members of the Legislative Assembly. This reflects the importance we attach to the role of each member of the assembly. Moreover, it is consistent with the provisions of the Legislative Assembly Act governing members' conduct and with conflict legislation in almost every other province.

First, the definition of conflict of interest in the code of conduct: The bill declares that a conflict of interest exists when a member makes a decision in relation to his or her public duty in the knowledge that there is an opportunity to further his or her private interest. This is an objective test. It both protects the public interest and provides meaningful guidance for members.

The bill sets out a code of conduct for all members. As one example, they will all be prohibited from using confidential information or the influence of their office to further private interest. Additional restrictions are placed on members of the executive council. As a general matter, they cannot engage in professional practice, carry on a business or hold outside office.

The bill applies to parliamentary assistants only as members, because their role is largely defined by the ministers they assist. Confidential staff are not covered by the bill since it regulates only the conduct of members, but members will continue to be responsible for their confidential staff. Further, the bill does not attempt to deal with the question of whether individuals who serve as paid lobbyists should be subject to some form of regulation. I regard the issue of lobbyists as separate and distinct from the matter of the proper conduct of members of the assembly. The appropriate response to the issue of lobbyists is currently under study in the ministry.

Second, the disclosure rules: Following the principles in the Aird report, the bill imposes stringent disclosure requirements on all members. Every member must disclose all assets, liabilities and income without exception to a commissioner appointed under the bill. We believe that only complete disclosure will protect the member from the pitfall of guessing what must be disclosed and what is exempt from disclosure. The commissioner will then prepare a public disclosure statement, which will be filed with the assembly and be available for public inspection.

The same disclosure requirements apply to the spouse and minor children of each member. As Mr. Aird recognized, this presents a difficult issue. We must not only respect but also promote the economic independence of spouses. At the same time, Ontario family law recognizes that spouses share a community of economic interest. Therefore, we propose that in exchange for complete disclosure, spouses will be free to carry on their business or professional life without restriction.

The use of the so-called blind trust as an alternative to full disclosure received considerable attention in the Aird report. Mr. Aird stated that he preferred to avoid the use of blind trusts in favour of full disclosure of a minister's business dealings. Mr. Aird considered recommending the abolition of blind trusts altogether. In the end, however, he decided that such arrangements still had some utility.

In our view, the blind trust mechanism requires a blind faith in its opaqueness that the citizens of this province are no longer able to share. Accordingly, this bill makes no provision for blind trusts as an alternative to full disclosure. At the same time, we do not believe that a minister, on taking office, should be required to divest, that is, to sell off or dispose of all his assets. To so require would effectively discourage those who have been successful in previous careers from entering public life. In any event, divestment might well be impossible or involve grave financial hardship.

Thus the bill provides for a management trust that, during office, will manage the minister's business. Under this arrangement, the trustee must be at arm's length with the member and must be approved by the independent commissioner appointed under the act.

Mr. Sterling: Like Greg Sorbara's brother.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Like Gordon Walker's wife.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will read the sentence again for the honourable member. Under this arrangement, the trustee must be at arm's length with the member and must be approved by the independent commissioner appointed under the act. The trustee is prohibited by law from consulting with the minister in respect of the management of the trust property. However, material changes in the trust holding must be reported to the minister and to the commissioner. The aim is twofold: to prevent the minister from interfering with the management of the trust and to ensure that the minister knows the actual trust holdings. He will then be responsible for avoiding conflict of interest in relation to those holdings.

The cornerstone of the bill is the office of the commissioner, to which I have already referred. Both the Aird report and the report of the standing committee on public accounts emphasized the need for an independent office to provide advice to members with respect to their duties. Under the bill, the commissioner, who will be an officer of the assembly, will provide advice to members regarding their obligations, investigate alleged breaches of the act and recommend sanctions in cases where the act has been breached.

By giving the commissioner this complete range of functions, the bill provides the fullest possible opportunity for members to fulfil their obligations. They will have advice available to them on a regular basis and they will be able to seek immediate advice on situations as they arise. Most important, they will have the necessary assurance that if they have fully and frankly consulted the commissioner and followed his advice, the commissioner will not find the member in breach of the legislation. Members will be at risk only where they fail to consult the commissioner fully and frankly or where they ignore the advice. Thus, it will be entirely within the member's power to avoid contravention of the act.

In Mr. Aird's view, there was no need for specific sanctions. The glare of publicity following release of the commissioner's report would, in his opinion, expose the member to the censure of the electorate and the member's party. There is much to be said in favour of Mr. Aird's approach. However, at this unique point in Canadian legislative history, public confidence in government probably requires the support of a definite sanctioning power. Within the context of our approach, it is obvious that the commissioner is in the best position to assess a member's conduct.

The role of the commissioner in interpreting the requirements of the act and advising members on matters of compliance will ensure that consistent standards are applied in determining breaches of the legislation. For members, fairness means consistency. They will have the assurance that if they have acted in good faith and sought and followed the advice of the commissioner, they will not be subjected to a different tribunal operating on different assumptions and making different interpretations.

The commissioner will have the power to recommend a specific sanction, ranging from a reprimand, to restitution, to loss of the seat and prohibition against immediate re-election. It will then be in the hands of the assembly whether the commissioner's recommended sanction should be adopted and enforced against the member. Ultimately, the fate of the member, though guided by the commissioner, will then be determined by the collective will of all the members whose integrity is compromised by the misconduct of any individual member.

In our view, the standards of conduct of members of this assembly are already high. There is no need for a set of unnecessarily harsh restrictions that will discourage individuals of high calibre and integrity from seeking public office. Instead, what is needed is a clearly defined set of rules to serve as a guidepost to members as well as a mechanism for resolving doubtful cases. This bill seeks to provide those missing elements. It is an approach that is simple, fair and reasonable. I am confident it will, if enacted, enhance public confidence in government in the province.

Mr. Harris: I want to respond to the statement made by the Attorney General on conflict-of-interest legislation. He does not call it that now; it is the Members' Standards of Office Act.

Mr. McClellan: The members are in conflict.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We are all in this together.

Mr. Harris: Yes, we are all in this together; there is no doubt about that.

The problems that have developed with this government did not develop with guidelines that were not sufficient. They did not develop with guidelines that were fuzzy, as some have put forward. They developed with the cavalier attitude of the Premier, and the government led by the Premier and his cabinet, towards any guidelines, regardless of what those guidelines were.

Conflict of interest is a matter of common sense. It is not a difficult matter to determine whether somebody has breached a conflict of interest. It is something that is difficult to define in law, as many of these laws are, but it is simple to interpret actions of common sense. It is that attitude that has caused the problems for this government, and now it is trying to duck its responsibility with this ridiculous bill that is being introduced today. I call it "ridiculous" without even having seen it. However, based on the statement, it appears as though that is the way it is going to be.

Mr. Aird stated that Blenus Wright was not successful in ensuring compliance, but now we are going to have another commissioner who will be successful in ensuring compliance. No rule or no individual commissioner is going to ensure compliance. The responsibility falls on the government; it falls on the Premier. The Premier's attitude from the beginning and his attitude as reflected through his cabinet is where it falls. No bill, no amount of deflection and no amount of this silliness take away from that responsibility.

I will have to take a look at the bill before I comment on the back-benchers' part. I do not know what he is putting in there, but it does not appear to me that back-benchers are the ones who make decisions on expenditures of the crown or decisions on where expenditures will be made, where contracts will be going or the rest of it. I fail to see how they are going to be covered, but it may be that the Attorney General has come up with a way. I will wait until I see the bill.

Parliamentary assistants are entirely responsible for all the regulations of the government. They have access to all the confidential information, or potentially all of it. The only reason they do not is if the minister does not trust them and, in the case of this government, I understand that may very well be the case with some. For those people who are going to be ministers, who have access to that information and who are responsible for all the regulations, to be excluded is absolutely ridiculous.

This is a matter of judgement, a judgement of the person who makes the appointments. It is the judgement of the Premier. I know some of my colleagues want to comment on it. Let me finish by saying there is an old Hungarian saying, and I think it applies here: "The fish stinks from the head." That is the problem the government has had and will continue to have.

Mr. Pope: I find it fitting that the Premier was not present today as the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) of this province gave the formal admission of failure when it comes to this problem and the way this government has handled it. This is a government that said, when it came into office, it would be squeaky clean. All of us have spent the past six months looking at conflict-of-interest problems that have arisen in that cabinet.

This government said that all the t's would be crossed and all the i's dotted. Then we had the Premier of this province admitting that he never took the time to administer or enforce the conflict-of-interest guidelines. This is a Premier and a government that said they would be open. Then we found that they secretly rewrote the guidelines in 1985 and never bothered telling the public. This is an admission of failure of this government on one of the most important elements of basic democratic government, the trust and confidence of the public, the people of this province, in their cabinet ministers. This Premier and this government have totally failed and breached the public faith.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to raise one quick point of order based on the comments of the opposition House leader. It proves he is living in history. He refers to the fact that parliamentary assistants are in charge of all regulations. That may have been the process with the previous government, but as chairman of the regulations committee of cabinet, I take --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of information.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to reply to the Attorney General's announcement today. Before I do, I want to express a small measure of regret. He sent the Aird report out to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. It would have been a reasonable thing to co-ordinate the response from the committee, which is virtually finished, with the introduction of legislation. He chose not to do that. I regret that. I think that was a move which he will himself regret in large measure shortly. He cannot treat committees of this Legislature in that way, with that kind of disdain. If he wants us to do the work on reports, such as this one on conflict of interest, he has at least to do the decent thing and allow the committee to report. That committee's job is just about done. In going through his statement today, I found there were not a great many areas where the committee will be apart from the government's initiatives.

I want to make two quick points. One is that it was an unfair and stupid thing to do. Perhaps it was done because the government does not know how to run the show yet. Surely it should have people around it who will tell it that there is a committee report coming in next week and that it would be appropriate to wait one more week before introducing legislation. The government is going to regret that. That is going to cause it some problems.

I do not know who makes up the titles of the government's acts, but to call this one the Members' Standards of Office Act is surely crazy. That is not what the government is talking about; it is talking about conflict-of-interest legislation. It would do the world a favour if it would just name the bill for what it is.

Let me go through quickly in response to what the minister had to say, because I do not think there will be complete unanimity about this. I think the committee will agree that disclosure is the cornerstone of it all. Complete, public disclosure is the fallback position that the minister will have to put in place. I caution all members that it is going to be complete and public, which is going to be uncomfortable. It is also going to have an element in it that will not be dissimilar to what most American jurisdictions do.

In the American political experience, when someone enters public office, he files certain documents. This is called disclosure. There is then a very active examination into whether or not one has filed all the documents one has. That is pretty alien to our political system, but I think we are headed in that direction. I know the minister avoided it in here, but I think he will come to realize, as the committee has, that there will have to be occasions when complete divesting is necessary and when nothing short of that will resolve the problem.

The government has begun to identify, by the recommendation in here that all members will have to disclose, that this act will have to apply to all members of the assembly. The government is not going to like this, but it is going to have to recognize that at some point the old tradition that one can go and hold a job four days a week and show up here one day a week is not going to last much longer and that it is going to have to address this practice. Whether it likes it or not, whether it wants to do it now or not, it is going to have to deal with all members of the assembly as peers. The rules of the game will have to be the same for everyone, no matter what the consequences are.

I will say in closing that I welcome any legislated form of conflict-of-interest rules. They are long overdue in this province. Most of us wished long and hard this summer, as we sat in committee, that there were a law in place and that we had that to deal with rather than the guidelines.

Mr. Rae: I want to say to the Attorney General that, under the guise of this legislation, the government has in some respects taken several steps backward. In fact, it is requiring less divestment by members of the executive council, by cabinet ministers, than is the case now. It has set out rules that are even less clear and that give all the power to an as yet unnamed commissioner.

I make the point that has been made by my colleague. Our view is that divestment should be the basic rule with respect to members of the cabinet, unless it can be clearly established that this is not workable in an individual case and would cause undue hardship, a decision that should be up to the discretion of the commissioner.

Instead of that -- and this is very interesting, and the naming of the bill is not an accident -- the government has changed the perception and the reality. Cabinet members have a particular responsibility. They are responsible for spending public money. I am all in favour of rules for every member, but the rules for members of cabinet have to be considerably tougher than these rules are.

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION EXCHANGES

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Since taking office, this government has made it a policy to expand the international dimensions of our post-secondary institutions and related agencies. We believe that education is an appropriate mechanism to build better relationships on the international scene.

The evidence is clear that co-operation in this area has significant short- and long-term benefits, not only intellectual but also social, cultural and certainly economic. Consider, for example, the central role that education played in the twinning agreement with Jiangsu province in the People's Republic of China and the already tangible economic, cultural and educational benefits.

It is within this policy framework that I recently led an Ontario government mission to five Middle Eastern states: Oman, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. The purpose of the mission was to explore and set out in memoranda of understanding areas for educational co-operation and development between these states and Ontario.

Nous avons rencontré des hauts fonctionnaires du gouvernement et des représentants du milieu de l'éducation dans chacun de ces États pour connaître de quelle façon les spécialistes ontariens de l'éducation et de la technologie pourraient leur venir en aide.

Nous avons également profité de cette occasion pour engager publiquement les entreprises ontariennes et canadiennes qui exercent, ou comptent exercer des activités industrielles ou commerciales au Proche-Orient.

The groundwork for the mission was laid out by the Ontario International Corp. over the past several years and by my predecessor, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson). The Ontario International Corp. had done several exploratory and advance missions to this area and had identified a considerable amount of potential for Ontario's service industries to develop opportunities to the Middle East.

We asked the member for York Mills to assist in this mission as a special adviser. She did important groundwork in the area as my predecessor, and I want to thank her publicly for the invaluable contribution she made to the success of our trip. I want to point out the the House some of the areas in which Ontario has had considerable success as a result of this mission.

In the state of Oman, we had a clear indication of the government's intention to proceed towards a memorandum of understanding in the very near future.

It is a matter of some pride that, on the occasion of the opening of the Sultan Qaboos University, the University of Ottawa was selected, through Dr. Antoine d'Iorio, the rector of the university, to bestow an honorary degree on Sultan Qaboos Bin Said, the head of state of Oman. This is a world-class university, which has several Ontarians in key teaching and administrative positions. I note specifically that Dr. Gilbert Heseltine, formerly of the University of Western Ontario, is the dean of the college of medicine at Sultan Qaboos University.

In the Yemen Arab Republic, we entered into a very specific memorandum of understanding that provides for, among other things, an ongoing technical committee.

In Saudi Arabia, we had extensive discussions that we believe will result in the signing of a memorandum of understanding in the very near future.

In the United Arab Emirates, we lent important assistance to Cansult Ltd.'s bid to be the project co-ordinator for the faculty of medicine at the United Arab Emirates University.

In Kuwait, we entered into a memorandum of understanding that we expect will greatly expand the sale and transfer of Ontario's expertise, particularly in the area of technical education.

These countries are taking education extremely seriously, and Ontario wants to be a part of that process. I will report to this House in the future on what I hope will be considerable benefits to this province and to our country as a result of this mission.

ARTS APPRECIATION DAY

Hon. Ms. Munro: In recognition of the talented artists throughout the province and the special encouragement they will receive from CBC's 12-hour Radiothon for the Arts, I would like to name this Saturday, November 29, 1986, Arts Appreciation Day.

I am sure I speak on behalf of all the honourable members when I say we are proud of the tremendous contributions Ontario's artists have made to this province and to this country. The talent and imaginations of our artists instil in us fresh perceptions and ideas. They entertain and enthral us with their excellence. Their creativity transcends geographic and regional boundaries, touching audiences in Canada and throughout the world.

The CBC, in honour of its 50th anniversary, is planning to broadcast a province-wide 12-hour Radiothon for the Arts from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday. This radiothon will pay tribute to our performing artists and arts organizations.

The CBC Radiothon for the Arts is a fund-raising initiative which will feature a variety of artists in Sudbury, Windsor and Thunder Bay. I am very pleased to be endorsing the CBC radiothon as another way of helping Ontario's people enrich their lives and communities.

By naming Arts Appreciation Day this Saturday, November 29, I hope members will join with me in applauding and supporting the valuable contributions of Ontario's artists.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With reference to standing order 88(d), and noting that I have raised this issue in the House on two specific occasions -- namely, Wednesday, October 15, and Thursday, May 8 -- I raise the issue yet again.

There are currently 172 unanswered Orders and Notices questions, some of which date back to December 1985. I am sure I do not have to point out the fact that these questions are nearly a year old and that with a civil service of more than 80,000 employees, and apparently growing, there is absolutely no excuse for this negligence.

I am formally registering this party's disappointment at this so-called open government's irresponsible behaviour and asking for immediate action to answer those Orders and Notices questions.

Mr. Bernier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is a point of order that has been raised.

Mr. Bernier: I have another point of order and a matter of information, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gillies: It is a distinct point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are sure of it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate it, but the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) got up and very clearly stated the number of questions he was referring to, and he wants that drawn to the attention of the government House leader or of the ministers responsible. He has done that.

Mr. Bernier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have brought this issue up four times in the last year. I have asked you to do something about this.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to burn the midnight oil and get the answers for you, but I cannot. I will do the best I can, and I am sure the message will be transferred to the government House leader.

14:10

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Gillies: The government will not answer questions in Orders and Notices; let us see if it can answer verbal questions. My question is of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The minister knows that 1,553 workers at the Goodyear plant in Etobicoke are waiting to see their fate, wanting to know if they are still going to have jobs or whether this government has any plans to provide new jobs for them. This waiting is causing a strain. Two of those workers have had nervous breakdowns and are hospitalized because of this situation.

We understand that as of this morning no politician, minister of the crown or official of the government of Ontario has contacted the union at the plant to offer any plans for assistance, any retraining or any employment programs of any sort. I am told by the president of the union that the only call they have had was one of federal assistance being offered by the federal member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Gillies: Is the minister prepared to tell those workers and this House now what plans he has for the future employment, re-employment or retraining of those 1,553 workers?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The jobs have not been lost yet, and we are continuing to deal with the company to see what we can do. Yesterday, I wrote to Robert E. Mercer, who is chairman and chief executive officer, asking him to consider, first, building a new plant and, second, whether they would extend the closing.

Some of the other matters the member mentioned have been under discussion by myself, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and our officials to see how we can best help the workers if they are laid off.

Mr. Gillies: Does the minister not think the workers have a right to know what plans he has in mind and what he might be able to do for them? I want to read to him a brief quote from union president Dave Birrell, contrasting the situation today with the situation in 1981, when the plant was threatened with closure. Mr. Birrell said:

"In 1981, the government came forward with good ideas and financial assistance which turned things around. The workers of the time were confident and had good feelings. This time there is a lot of hostility. The province did not try to do anything until it was too late, and now we do not know if it is going to be successful."

What specific programs, by way of retraining through the Ministry of Skills Development and by way of re-employment, can the minister offer these workers? His good assurances are not enough. What is he prepared to do for them now?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: These are matters that have been under discussion by our officials. I do not believe the member has been properly briefed. I believe he will find that the Minister of Labour met with the union earlier this week.

Mr. Gillies: I have to take the union president at his word that he has heard nothing.

Under the $100-million Ontario's Training Strategy, which was announced this fall by the minister's colleague the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara), our understanding is that the training strategy that was in place from the previous government for older laid-off workers has been discontinued and the only training programs the government now has for older workers are those for which the company applies when those workers are going to continue employment with the company. We fear that will not be the case with these people.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Gillies: Will the minister put into place a strategy and training programs for the reemployment of older laid-off workers? It has worked well and served this province well in the past. Why will he not reintroduce it and ensure that it will do so in the future?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I stated before, we will explore all the possibilities of trying to keep that plant open before we get into finalization of some of these matters, which have been discussed by our officials.

Mr. Pope: The minister is exploring possibilities while workers are being laid off. That is the reality of the government that is before us.

Mr. Speaker: Your question is of which minister?

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Pope: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, otherwise known as the minister in charge of the deindustrialization of Ontario. It has to do with the softwood lumber matter.

Since he has been strangely silent on this matter for some time, can the minister indicate to this House what documents have been filed with the Department of Commerce in Washington and what Ontario's position is in detail with respect to the preliminary countervail decision? Which elements of that decision is he challenging and what documents has he filed?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I told the member yesterday, I do not think there have been as many new plants established in the province as in the past year and a half. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) just brought me up to date: also, 157,000 more jobs have been created in the province than there were in the previous year. That is how well the province is doing.

As I have stated in this House before, we have just been through the verification process in which we have had people from the Department of Commerce up here. We have been working very diligently with them and have been supplying them with information that we feel is pertinent to this case. At the hearing that will be held on December 4, the industry will be represented by its lawyers; we will also be in attendance. If there is not a termination agreement, we will be filing our information before the December 14 deadline.

Mr. Pope: The minister knows full well that under the preliminary decision, his position for the December 4 hearing had to be filed by November 24. The truth is that he has not filed anything. He has one letter from the Hogan and Hartson law firm in Washington that says they are representing the government of Ontario through Blake Cassels and Graydon but contains no specifics about which elements in the preliminary decision he is challenging.

The minister went along with the eight to 10 per cent solution knowing it would cost 500 to 1,000 jobs. How many jobs are going to be lost with the 15 per cent solution? What he is going to do to help those workers?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We are of the opinion, as we have been in the past, that we will continue to work very diligently right through the whole process to make sure jobs are not lost.

Mr. Pope: In Vancouver, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) failed to bring the other provincial governments and the federal government along with Ontario's position. He failed because he lacked credibility. He does not even have credibility with his Quebec friend Premier Bourassa. Not one government supports Ontario's position, because this Premier failed on behalf of the workers of northern Ontario.

My question to the minister is this, can the minister indicate to this House and to the people of the province, including representatives of the workers of Nakina, Longlac and Terrace Bay, what arrangements and what negotiations he has had with the federal government with respect to the 15 per cent tariff imposition? What is the impact going to be on Ontario? How is that amount going to be covered? What negotiations has he undertaken to help the workers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Before I answer that question, I want to tell the previous questioner that the Minister of Labour met with the rubber workers' union at Goodyear on Tuesday morning; so that meeting was held.

I do not know where the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) has been in the past month or so when we have been talking about these matters. It is in the paper every day, on the radio and on television, what this Premier and this government have been doing to fight for those people. Let me read the member something --

Mr. Foulds: This is politics by public relations, not by action.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member may feel that way because he is in the opposition and he is speaking politically.

Here is a wire from E. B. Eddy Forest Products: "As one of Ontario's major lumber producers, we want to thank you for the stand that you have taken on the lumber countervail issue at the Vancouver conference."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon would like to ask a question, if members will allow it.

14:20

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. With all due respect, getting an answer from him is worse than pulling teeth. He blames the previous administration when the seriousness of the case is appalling and shocking. We have people in the gallery who have spent thousands of dollars to come and tell him today they are losing their jobs. Yesterday and today, the minister goes on and on. The more it changes, the more it remains the same.

The question is very simple. Perhaps the minister can help me with a straight answer, not empty platitudes. Is he or is he not going to file a written submission with the Department of Commerce in the US to help offset the countervailing duties? No platitudes: Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes, it has been decided by our solicitors and those involved in the ministries that we will be filing the information with them. We have until December 14 to file that information.

Mr. Pouliot: I am shocked. I must compliment the minister on his born-again spirit of truth.

I have a supplementary following the recent action of the minister regarding the layoffs at Goodyear -- truly, tales of Houdini. We belong to the second Ontario. We have not seen him rush to protect our jobs. We have seen him go literally with cap in hand, adopting the policy of the beggar -- too late, of course -- to try to save those 1,500 jobs in southern Ontario. That point is well taken. However, we have not seen any action from the minister. We have been treated as second-class citizens.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Pouliot: Will the minister today give a commitment that Kimberly-Clark will be asked to open its books -- because the workers do not believe it is not doing okay -- that a full investigation will be conducted and that as a result of keeping within its cutting limits, it will guarantee the jobs that are very much needed in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member knows how important we regard this, because this minister is meeting with him and that group this afternoon.

Mr. Morin-Strom: It is quite clear that this government has no industrial policy whatsoever for northern Ontario. We need one that includes an infusion of major capital funds into the north to ensure that jobs are created in the north from industries that make sense there.

On November 6, 1986, this Legislature passed a motion by my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) calling for an independent northern Ontario economic diversification fund, to be managed by northerners, that would be used to diversify the northern economy. Will the minister respect this Legislature's opinion and act to start up this fund and get funds available for northerners to use to generate the jobs we need across the north?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: That member is the last one who should ask a question such as that. A conference on the north was held in his riding, a new Ontario Development Corp. office has been opened, there was the appointment of a new assistant deputy minister in his riding and there have been many other things. I cannot understand why he would ever ask a question such as that. His riding is receiving a lot more than some other ridings.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are wasting the time of members who wish to ask questions.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I understand the outrage of my colleagues on this issue.

DAY CARE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Premier with regard to his peekaboo policy on child care issues in Ontario.

It was with some surprise that I saw the Premier on television talking about Ontario's intention to provide operating grants to nonprofit centres and to move to income testing so that assistance is targeted to more low-income families in Ontario. We have been waiting for the white paper; we expected it last spring. The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) had nothing to say to Ontario's day care coalition this fall. The Premier went to British Columbia to make this announcement. Why did he go there? When will we hear his announcement and statement in this House? Does he really intend to delay any action for another six months as the two of them were hinting out there?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We were discussing so-called women's issues on the agenda at the first ministers' conference. I do not regard them as exclusively women's issues. One of the key issues is child care. As the member knows, Ontario has a considerable way to go to bring its policies in line as we would like to see them. The minister has been working very conscientiously on that for the last little while.

We also believe we need a federal-provincial national strategy with respect to the financing. Because of his intimate knowledge of the situation, the member will be aware of some of the ramifications of that. I was trying to urge my peers to get together on the financing aspect. I said then that we are moving into direct operating grants and income testing. This is a very major step forward, as I am sure my honourable friend will acknowledge.

He must also recognize that it is better to go for a co-ordinated financial strategy with the federal government, which is wrestling with these problems at the same time. I suggested to the Prime Minister that we get the finance ministers together with the ministers for community and social services and the ministers responsible for women's issues, not just the ministers responsible for community and social services, to look at the financial ramifications of this question. I am trying to urge urgency on my colleagues in this regard. We have told the member the direction in which we are moving.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The Premier will not be surprised to know we support both those initiatives; we just had not heard them here in this House. He should not be surprised that I am a little offended to hear that the government is also moving into the field of giving direct grants to commercial centres in this province, according to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Premier, as he was interpreted in the press. Why are we hearing about that major change in initiative, which would bring nursing home policies to child care issues, when we have a select committee on health that is looking into the expansion of that assistance to commercial and private enterprise in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect, I do not think the member is quoting the Attorney General accurately on this matter. We cannot give direct grants to commercial operations under the current --

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, yes.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) gets so excited all the time, even when she is wrong. If she will listen for a moment, she may hear the facts of the situation.

We cannot do that under the present financing arrangements. We are looking for rationality in the financing. We recognize that we have a long way to go. I am delighted the member supports the direction in which this government is moving. It is a significant step forward. To those people who do not understand the significance of it, and I know the member does, he will want to say this is a major step forward. We are trying to sort out the rationality of the financing between the federal and provincial governments. We are pushing as hard as we can.

I apologize if my friend was offended because the statement was not made in this House as opposed to being made to my colleagues.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We still have not had one here.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have told the member. He knows where we stand. We are reasserting it right now. He should not get excited about things he does not know but should celebrate the things he does know.

Ms. Gigantes: I will be glad to provide the Premier with a transcript of what his Attorney General said in British Columbia. The Premier knows that no province using the income testing route at present is using the maximum income guidelines. I wonder whether he will assure us that when Ontario goes this route, which we approve, we will move to the maximum level so the greatest number of families will receive benefits from that change in policy, which he can carry out now, by the way.

14:30

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not prepared to give my honourable friend any particular undertaking at this moment. What we are looking for is the maximum impact for the moneys expended. As my friend knows, and I indicated this to her in this House and to my colleagues in Vancouver, this is a major leap forward and a new method of dealing with these questions.

What we also want to look at in very pragmatic terms is that for the amount of moneys expended -- and believe me, it will be substantial -- we get the maximum number of new spaces. Obviously that is one of our concerns. We are working this out with the federal members, and I think the member should stop being so negative about these matters.

LAYOFFS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who is proud about his job creation efforts in the province when more than 5,000 northern Ontario residents have lost their jobs already this year.

I would like to ask the minister, who is so proud of this record of his government, what he is going to do for the workers and the communities of northern Ontario that are faced with these layoffs. What is he going to say? More important, what is he going to do today for the representatives of the Kimberly-Clark workers in Longlac, Nakina and Terrace Bay who are here to see him? What is he going to tell them that he has specifically done already to help these laid-off workers?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We are not proud if one job is lost in Ontario. We are very concerned about any jobs that are lost in the north. The member is forgetting who caused those losses. It was the United States government and the tariff that was put on. Some of the problems have been caused by the Tory government in Ottawa too. We will continue in our fight to have this tariff done away with.

Mr. Pope: Last week, the Minister of Natural Resource (Mr. Kerrio) tried to say that the tariff had nothing to do with the layoffs, that the layoffs were not being caused by the tariff. Now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology reverses that minister's position to the people of this province.

We know the tariffs are causing the layoffs. The minister can blame whomever he wants, but he has a higher obligation than that. He has an obligation to help the workers of northern Ontario. What specifically is he doing today to help those workers?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Again, we are not pleased with the situation that has been caused by the 15 per cent duty. We will continue to fight that duty and to reinstate those jobs in the north.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I know the member for Nickel Belt would like to ask a question.

WILDERNESS PARK

Mr. Laughren: I would like to thank my colleagues for this opportunity. I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater wilderness park, located near New Liskeard in the riding of Timiskaming. The minister will know that two lumber companies and his ministry support the linking of a road between Highway 560 and Highway 11. The linking of that road would provide easy access to that wilderness park and destroy the whole wilderness setting. Will the minister withdraw his ministry's support for completion of the Red Squirrel Road?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I can answer the question by saying no, we will not withdraw that undertaking, simply because we are doing something there that is unique. We are having an environmental assessment on an area that is quite important to the people of that area and to the government of Ontario.

I remind the honourable member that I have done something quite important as it relates to the parks of this great province by sharing with the federal Minister of the Environment, Tom McMillan, a new undertaking at the Bruce Peninsula, the first federal park in the province in many years. Therefore, we do have a commitment to parks.

Regarding the park he mentioned, where there is some impact, I was the person who instituted the environmental assessment. I think that is a fair way to examine the whole process.

Mr. Laughren: Creating a new park by killing an old one does not solve the problem and does not indicate any kind of commitment to parks in this province.

The Minister of Natural Resources should know that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, based in Switzerland, has listed this park as one of 23 endangered wilderness areas in the world.

Mr. Fontaine: Switzerland knows the north.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) does not know what he is talking about.

In that area, a coalition of cottagers, tourist operators and environmentalists has been trying to convince the minister that there is a lot more long-run economic benefit to tourism year after year after year than the benefits that accrue from one-time cutting of the trees that are there. Does the minister not understand how significant the long-run benefits are to tourism and how the completion of this road will destroy those benefits? Why will he not withdraw his support?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I appreciate what the honourable member is saying, but I must reiterate it is one of the few times in the province that we have had an environmental assessment on the construction of a road. All interested parties will be heard. The assessment that will be made -- it is costing some $100,000 to participate in this environmental assessment, which I think is a real commitment to the people of Ontario -- will be fairly dealt with.

PROTECTION FOR USED CAR BUYERS

Mr. Callahan: I have a number of people in my riding who have been purchasing used cars, and I was somewhat taken aback by the statement that was made by the president of the Automobile Protection Association recently in the press in his annual rating of new cars. At a press conference, he referred to the protection plan for used car buyers "promised" by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In the light of that, I would like the minister to advise the House, myself and my constituents why he would say "promised." I understood it was under way.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is referring to a plan that we have, to bring in protection to people who buy used cars. Members will know that as of November 15, 1986, we initiated our Ontario motor vehicle arbitration plan dealing with new cars. I will be proceeding with a program for used cars; we are into discussions now.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Solicitor General. In 1978, I sat on the standing committee on procedural affairs, which was looking into the conduct of the then Solicitor General, George Kerr. The minister may remember Mr. Kerr called a crown attorney on behalf of a constituent who was on government assistance; a recent immigrant, new to the country, who had on several occasions threatened suicide to Mr. Ken's constituency office.

The then Premier Davis and Mr. Kerr decided Mr. Kerr should resign because of the appearance of an interference of the chief law enforcement officer with our justice system. At that time, the Liberal members on the committee insisted Mr. Kerr resign.

Does the minister think it unreasonable for the members of the opposition to demand his resignation when he has apparently broken the law and is under police investigation for his conduct?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I do not see the parallel whatsoever, and I do not consider it appropriate to resign. An investigation is already going on under the aegis of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), and I suggest the actions suggested by the honourable member are somewhat premature.

Mr. Sterling: About a month ago, hundreds of Queen's University students were arrested and/or fined for liquor violations after a school homecoming party. The police were quick to act in that instance. Is the minister's case really that much different, or is he above the law? If he is not, why does he not do the honourable thing and resign?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I stood in this House before and said I was not resigning over this issue. If there is any change in that, it will have to come from someone much higher than myself. As regards the issue of the university students, if the statistics were checked a little more thoroughly to see how many were actually charged, it would be quite different from what the honourable member has led us to believe.

14:40

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Mr. Allen: I have a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister will remember that a year ago this Legislature ordered Bill 39, which provides for the general election of the regional chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth, for committee of the whole House. He may imagine my surprise when my House leader informed me earlier this week that the government House leader was putting the blocks to the progress of this bill --

Interjections.

Mr. Allen: He was putting the boots to it, but also the blocks.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is that like putting your car up on blocks? Question, please.

Mr. Allen: In the light of the intense interest in my region in the progress of this bill, which I am sure the minister has heard of, will he clarify for me at this point the status of this bill and his intentions with respect to it?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As I have told the honourable member on a number of occasions, I supported Bill 39 on its first and second readings and I intend to support the bill on its third reading, but at present I have some problems with the bill. The problems are technical, such as the method of the election of that regional chairman. There is another technical problem: If a vacancy is created, how will this person be replaced? I can cite a number of other examples. That is why the bill, with his co-operation, can be rewritten very shortly.

Mr. Allen: I have no problem with any amendments to the bill; I think the minister is aware of that. I know there is no date on it; that does need to be included. The fastest way to proceed and get this matter resolved is to do it through Bill 39 with the amendments that are proposed.

I will be happy to sit down with the minister's staff and work that out, but I do want to remind both him and the government House leader that a recent editorial in the Hamilton Spectator put the mood of our region very clearly: "Elect our chairman and quit stalling." How long do we have to wait? Until the civic holiday of 1987 or of 1988 before we see this bill?

Is there a timetable that the minister can suggest to us? Will we see this bill before Christmas, or before the end of this session at the latest?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to see the bill introduced for third reading as soon as possible, and I will be talking to my House leader. In the meantime, I can promise the honourable member that my staff will be in touch with his office to resolve some of the technical problems I just mentioned.

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

Ms. Hart: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have been receiving some constituency calls in York East concerning the announcement the minister made, I believe in June, with respect to proposals on disclosure of information to adoptees. Has there been any response to the proposals made? What is the timetable, if the minister can give it to us, for the tabling of any legislation that is proposed?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The announcement of last June outlined the steps this government intends to take to expand the adoption disclosure provisions in the Child and Family Services Act, a section of the act that was not proclaimed because the perception of it was that it simply did not meet the need. It is our intent to bring forward that section before the end of this session. I hope we can bring it forward next week.

With respect to the particular concern the member expressed, we have clearly indicated in our proposal, and intend so to draft the legislation, that birth parents would be consulted before any identifying information with respect to them would be released to anyone.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Solicitor General. I remind him that in 1975 a third party allegation of wrongdoing was made against the then Solicitor General, an allegation he denied at that time. It was subsequently proved false. I draw to his attention the former Solicitor General's letter of resignation, in which he stated:

"I am wholly conscious of the fact that there can be no suggestion of impropriety on my part that could in any way reflect upon the administration of justice and law enforcement. Under the circumstances, therefore I feel I have no alternative at this time but to submit my resignation."

We now have a situation where the Solicitor General as the top law enforcement officer of the crown has admitted breaking the law, compromising the Ontario Provincial Police, and is currently the subject of a police investigation. Why does he think he is not only above the law but also above the integrity of this Legislature by carrying on in his post?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: If the member will check the record, he will see that I did not make the admission of having broken the law. The admission was to the act I was challenged about. There is a difference. It is up to other persons to determine whether the law was actually broken.

Mr. Harris: In the example I read to the minister, the then Solicitor General did not admit to it either; in fact, he flatly denied it and was proved innocent.

On November 19, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was quoted in the Kingston Whig-Standard as saying, "Keyes made a mistake that I regret very much." The Premier went on to say, "I do not think he thought through the consequences." I do not know whether the Solicitor General is aware of the consequences today.

In 1975, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), then leader of his party, said -- this is a quote I have given before -- "I pledge integrity in government." By remaining as a Solicitor General in these circumstances, he is making a mockery of this Legislature and of the legal system of this province. I ask him again, out of respect for the law, for this Legislature and any kind of sense of honour, when is he going to resign?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Any of the consequences or outcome should await the hearing that is being conducted by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). I stand corrected -- the investigation under the Attorney General's aegis. Once that has been completed and made known to the House, the circumstances and the outcome will be known.

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: My question is for the Premier. I now have received a negative answer from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) to the many petitions I have tabled asking for provincial intervention to protect the thousands of residents in the neighbourhood of the Greenwood Race Track from the loss of their traditional Sunday respite from racetrack activities that disrupt the neighbourhood.

In view of his avowed commitment to open government, does the Premier think a decision to allow Sunday racing in the midst of a large residential area should be made by a one-sided, government-appointed agency, the Ontario Racing Commission, which provides no opportunity for the residents gravely affected by its decision to present their views on its impact on their quality of life and to have their views considered when it is making such a decision?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As one who spent a great deal of time in opposition, I know how disappointing it is when the rest of the world does not agree, with me in that case and with the member in this case. The minister has dealt with this issue on a number of occasions. The member has put her case forcefully and well in this House. There happens to be a difference of opinion on this matter. I say to my colleague that I support the minister's handling of the issue.

14:50

Ms. Bryden: I was asking the Premier whether he supports the principle of a government-appointed agency refusing to have public hearings on an issue that affects thousands of residents. This is the real issue. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) has not dealt with that either.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member may want to put this under environmental assessment or some other kind of consolidated joint hearings or something such as that. Frankly, if we followed the NDP view on everything, nothing would ever get done around here.

Occasionally, decisions have to be made by someone or other. A duly constituted body discussed that. If the member wants to bring in a private member's bill, we can have a thorough discussion in this House. She has alternatives. I am sorry the member does not support the decision the government and its agencies have made in this regard, but the minister has handled it as well as can be done in the current circumstances. What the member is asking is to bring the matter in here every time she disagrees with a board, agency or commission ruling and ask me to unilaterally overturn it.

Mr. Swart: Ask for a hearing.

Mr. Charlton: The community wants a hearing.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The members want a hearing on every single thing that happens that they disagree with. I understand the point of view perhaps, but if one takes it to its logical extension, my honourable friend will realize that no one can govern under those circumstances, even the NDP.

HEALTH OF SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Callahan: Recently in my constituency office --

Interjections.

Mr. Callahan: The people of Brampton are interested in this question.

Recently in my constituency office --

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

Mr. Callahan: -- I had a number of nurses who visited me and were interested in setting up a practice with emphasis on wellness and education on wellness. I am not sure whether this should go to the Minister of Health or to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs. I noticed in his recent white paper report he referred in one of the specifics to the question of wellness. We have not heard anything about it since. I would like to find out what steps have been taken along those lines.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I am glad the members opposite are as interested as my colleague is in wellness.

One of the five initiatives outlined in A New Agenda, which is a policy paper for services for seniors, makes reference to that in general terms. Specifically, we are hoping the federal government will join with us in promoting various programs that will stress illness prevention and health promotion for seniors.

DAY CARE

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. It has to do with the Premier's comments when he was in Vancouver last week talking about changes in funding for child care, which was alluded to earlier, and the funding that could take place for grants to centres and income testing.

It turns out that people in the know in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, did not this week know anything about what the Premier was talking about. Can the minister tell the people of Ontario the details of this new policy, or is it something that is supposed only to be known 3,000 miles away when the Premier is out of town?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Let me make it clear to my honourable friend that the minister responsible for the Ontario women's directorate and the minister responsible for delivering day care services had many and long consultations with the Premier on exactly what he was going to say in Vancouver. There were no surprises whatsoever. The honourable member will be well aware, because I have responded to his and other questions in this House, that two of the initiatives we would like to move on are in the areas of direct grants and income testing. The member will be well aware that we have indicated that we want to do this, because the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has clearly said previously that we want to move day care in Ontario away from a welfare service to a public service. These are two of the initiatives that are going to enable us to do that.

The member will also be aware that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has said clearly with respect to pay equity that some day care centres will not be directly affected by the new legislation. One of the ways we want to assist day care workers in improving their wages is through the mechanism of direct grants.

The member will further be aware that we have clearly indicated that we want to be able to provide some assistance to the lower-middle income group, which cannot qualify for the present subsidies. By using income testing, we will be able to do that.

All of the initiatives that the Premier indicated that this province wants to move on, and requested support from the federal government for, are totally consistent with everything we have been saying for the last several months.

Mr. Cousens: They have not said much. The paper and the other things just have not happened.

Let us deal with one specific aspect of what the minister is talking about. Given the fact that he is talking about income testing as a new direction and given that current Canada assistance plan requirements have certain aspects to them, what will he do about children in commercial centres, where 40 per cent of the province's spaces are located?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Obviously, that is one of the concerns that has to be addressed and one of the concerns the Premier raised with the Prime Minister. As my friend has just indicated, approximately 45 per cent of the licensed supervised day care spaces in this province are in the commercial sector. Therefore, if we are going to make some kinds of moves, we have to be cognizant of those spaces.

There is no way we can create roughly 50,000 spaces overnight to replace the ones that are currently in the commercial sector. Therefore, being cognizant of that, we are trying to discover what the federal government's intentions are with respect to this area so that we can incorporate those intentions into our overall policy program.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It relates to the reply he gave my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) earlier this week when he talked about the inability of tavern owners to get liability insurance. May I remind him of what he said, according to Hansard:

"I disagree with the member when he says they will operate without any liability insurance. I am not aware of any tavern owner in Ontario who is operating without liability insurance."

After the minister's comment, John Guthrie, executive director of the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, informed me that at least 1,000 taverns and bars in this province are operating without liability insurance.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. Swart: Fully one third of all the licensed establishments, with more than 50 per cent of sales of alcohol beverages, are going bare, without insurance.

I have a very simple question to the minister: How does he explain his colossal ignorance of what is taking place in this province with regard to insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: When I talked about insurance, I was making the point that, of the people who were calling my ministry and calling the Ontario liability insurers, there was not one who could not get insurance. What we had talked about was the two major problems regarding the insurance industry. One of them was availability and the other one was affordability.

We have addressed the availability problem, and I stand by my statement that there is not a policyholder who cannot get insurance. The affordability problem is still with us; we know that and we are addressing it. That is why we are implementing many of the reforms that we are doing through Slater's recommendations and through some of the legislation we are bringing forward.

Mr. Swart: May I remind the minister that this is not what he said. He said he did not know of any tavern that was doing without it and he did not believe my colleague that they were operating without insurance.

15:00

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary is?

Mr. Swart: Yes. By way of supplementary, I would like to ask the minister whether he will contact Mr. Guthrie and report back to the House on the numbers operating without insurance? Does he not realize the risk at which this puts the people who are patronizing those establishments that do not have insurance? Does he not think that be has an obligation to see that affordable insurance is available, whether auto or liability, so that the people of this province can all have adequate coverage?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know that this is exactly the problem we are addressing. We had to address the first problem of availability, when people were coming to us and saying, "We cannot get insurance at any price." We have now addressed that and we are now working on the problem of affordability.

HEALTH FUNDING

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Health in regard to the Provincial Auditor's report. On pages 56 and 57 the auditor said:

"The method of allocation of funds to health agencies was not equitable and did not facilitate delivery of legislated public health programs....notwithstanding the enrichment funding, the present procedure of limiting annual increases of individual health agencies to a fixed percentage of their prior year's approved budget has failed to adequately address the existing funding inequity among agencies."

In response to this, can the minister indicate what the Ministry of Health intends to do to help public health agencies in rural, northern and eastern Ontario to be able to catch up to their counterparts in urban and metropolitan Ontario, so that they will be able to meet their legislated responsibilities and provide the health programs taken for granted in urban Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the auditor's remarks are based on the differentials between various areas in our province. Some of those have developed with respect to some decisions made by various boards at particular times in terms of what funds they allocated.

I agree with the honourable gentleman. I agree with the auditor that there are differentials in the manner in which money is spent, but there is some independence of determination at the local levels through those boards, because of the autonomous nature of those boards, which will reflect on the level of spending that is ultimately attained.

Bearing that in mind, there are programs. The member asked me what we were doing currently to help deal with that. We do have some augmentation of programs which will help to bring some of those expenditures more in line.

I would also like to advise the members that even though the question was put in the context of differentials, rural and northern, eastern and central Ontario as opposed to some of our urban centres, some differentials exist as well among urban-centred boards.

We have taken the opportunity of addressing the question of funding to the association of boards and we are working with it to see what may be accomplished. I can tell the gentleman and the public we have a large number of problems that affect unequal distribution of allocation of funds. We are working at that with the boards' association.

Mr. Wildman: In that long and rather convoluted answer, the minister admitted that even with the enrichment there is no way an agency in a rural part of the province which started off at a lower base, prior to the across-the-board percentage increases over the years, is ever going to catch up, unless this ministry provides additional funding.

Does the minister agree that in parts of northern Ontario it is difficult to attract professionals and provide programs and that those agencies should have the funds to be able to pay more in order to be able to compete in hiring at least? If they do not have as much money, not only can they not pay more, they cannot pay as much and are never going to be able to attract the professionals they need.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We take a look at the disparities in ability to attract professional assistance when programs are submitted to us. On occasion, we have looked at several areas of the province. In fact, I think the Kenora health unit has submitted some programs which we looked at to try to attract some professionals. That is just one example but it applies across the province in general. We try to provide funding which may attract people to go to areas that are not well stocked with professionals.

In terms of supplying services in certain areas -- speech pathology, physiotherapy and occupational therapy -- there appears to be an increasing demand for services which is not always met, particularly with an increase in the stipend available through those health units. I know the honourable gentleman would agree with me on that point.

We are trying to find ways of helping to provide extra services where services are required, but there are some things we cannot do. We cannot make decisions at the local level in relation to the percentages, the contribution towards the 25 per cent or whatever percentage the local board must get from the local municipality. That also has an effect.

YOUNG OFFENDERS FACILITIES

Mr. Baetz: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. The ministry has been pursuing a program of establishing group homes for young offenders in residential neighbourhoods across the province and the minister is doing that without a formal set of guidelines for community consultation prior to setting up these homes.

Without this essential prior consultation, in neighbourhoods such as Golden Avenue and Poulin Avenue, in Ottawa West, 75 neighbours, who were surprised and angered by this sudden and arbitrary approach, have petitioned the minister. Will he tell us if and when he plans to establish, publish and follow guidelines for consultation with neighbourhoods such as those that have proved so successful in the ministries of Health, and Community and Social Services?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The set of guidelines on group homes prepared by the previous government is currently followed to a large extent in establishing open custody facilities. The guidelines are used to make sure that the criterion of zoning is appropriate for the municipality and to get assurance from planning officers that it is appropriate before any such homes are established. This has worked extremely well in the opening of at least seven new homes in the past year alone.

Mr. Baetz: I can tell the minister he is not following the guidelines and he does not have published guidelines for his ministry, unlike Health, and Community and Social Services.

How many more group homes for young offenders is the minister planning to establish throughout the province in residential neighbourhoods, and in what cities and towns? Is he prepared to promise us that he will not support any plans for such homes until his guidelines for community consultation are in place and that they will be rigorously adhered to by the sponsoring agencies?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: In accordance with the need for open custody facilities, we will continue to open them in areas and cities where the greatest need arises and where there is a desire on the part of sponsoring agencies to open them.

As I said earlier, we have opened a number of them in eastern Ontario this past year. We have opened one in Brockville and one in Cornwall, we are in the process of opening one in Ottawa and we are looking at other areas across the province where there is a need and as long as they are in accordance with the legal bylaws of the municipality. That is the major basis on which they will be opened. We hope they will have a great deal of support from the communities and from the liaison committees that are established as each home is opened.

GOVERNMENT INVENTORIES

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the acting Chairman of Management Board in relation to his role as the co-ordinator of inventory control for all the ministries. According to the Provincial Auditor, out of a sample of 1,300 recorded assets, only 230 assets could not be located. The Ministry of Natural Resources indicated that 3,500 assets costing approximately $1.7 million could not be located in its 1985 inventory.

Can the minister inform the House where all those refrigerators, stoves and television sets have gone? Is it an inventory problem or a police problem? Has he investigated it?

15:10

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I really do not know. Management Board of Cabinet has sent a letter to all deputies indicating we require an up-to-date inventory and a careful assessment of what is missing and an indication of where it has gone and where it might be recovered. The Provincial Auditor's report made a clear indication that went out the day before the government changed. We are expecting a report from the deputies.

PETITIONS

EQUALITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Mr. Davis: I have a petition, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, express our dissatisfaction with the government of Ontario for the introduction of the amendment to the Human Rights Code to include the phrase `sexual orientation,' without consulting the people of Ontario. We ask the government to withdraw this amendment."

It is signed by 150 people representing the Commonwealth Avenue Baptist Church, the People's Church of Toronto and St. Peter's Anglican Church.

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I have more petitions on the subject of Sunday racing.

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

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

"Whereas the Ontario Racing Commission in its hearing into the Ontario Jockey Club application for Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track has ruled that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear the concerns of residents surrounding the aforesaid racetrack;

"And whereas many residents have shown their concern with the impact of Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track on their neighbourhood and have indicated their wish to voice that concern;

"That the government amend the Racing Commission Act to ensure that the rights and concerns of residents in the neighbourhood of the racetrack and in the surrounding community be considered and protected by the Ontario Racing Commission in setting racing dates, times and schedules;

"Further, that the legislation provide that the long tradition of no Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track be maintained."

I support this petition.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. D. R. Cooke from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee's report with respect to plant closures and layoffs and the establishment of a select committee on plant closures and shutdowns and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: This motion is the result of the concern of our committee about the recent plant closures that have occurred in some parts of this province, particularly northern Ontario, and the announcement of the closure of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

We are concerned in our committee about the cause of these announcements. We are concerned about the steps that have been taken in the companies involved, at both the labour and the government level, to avoid the closures. We are concerned about the future steps that might be taken in this regard, particularly at Goodyear, and about the steps that might be taken to alleviate the burden on the workers.

Our committee has indicated in this report, in a motion that was passed this morning, that we are recommending that this House reappoint the select committee on plant closures, which existed until 1981. We are indicating to the House that if this is not done by December 15, our committee will undertake to look into these matters itself. However, as I am sure all members are aware, our plate is very full. It is for this reason, in order to try to get on with some of the other matters in which we are involved, that we are asking the House to reappoint the select committee on plant closures.

I will make an extremely controversial motion at this point and ask for the adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether the House would permit me to make a very brief response to the report, since it is a matter of some urgency.

Mr. Foulds: If that is the case, I think spokesmen from each party should be allowed a comment as long as the Treasurer's comment.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was fortunate in obtaining a copy of the motion before it was presented to the Clerk, and I had an opportunity to consult with the chief government whip. It is her view, and I concur, that with the very heavy committee load already undertaken, it is not appropriate to appoint a special select committee for this purpose. Therefore, we feel that the committee that presented the report should not wait for December 15, but should proceed with the review envisaged in the committee report without delay.

Mr. McFadden: If I may briefly reply, the problem we have in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs is that there is not enough time allocated to the committee to fulfil all the various items that have been referred to it by this House.

The matter of plant closings is of urgent importance, as are a number of other matters, as we understand it, that were referred to this committee. They include the whole question of corporate concentration of ownership, referred to us by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) through his last budget; a review of Ontario's economic outlook; and dealing with Bill 116, the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. Further to that, we have estimates before the committee that we understand must be dealt with in the near future before this session ends.

We are not opposed to getting on with and reviewing the plant shutdown at Goodyear, as well as plant layoffs and shutdowns in northern Ontario. The one point that was not emphasized when the committee report was made a few moments ago by the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. S. Cooke) is that we are not just looking at Goodyear; we are also taking a look at layoffs across Ontario with specific emphasis on layoffs that have taken place recently in Thunder Bay, Terrace Bay and other communities in northern Ontario.

The motion passed by the committee was passed to bring some focus first to the issue, but also to bring some focus to the government on the fact that this committee is involved with vital work, and yet there has been totally inadequate time provided for this committee to get on with its job. If the government and the government House leader are serious about involving the public and this House in the budget process involved in looking at corporate concentration of ownership, in looking at plant layoffs and all the other matters referred to this committee, then the agenda of the committee and the time allocated to it should be adequate. Otherwise, it is making a farce of the whole idea of creating a committee of this nature.

While we support the idea of carrying on, and the standing committee has no objection to looking at the matter, I very strongly suggest that there has to be a review by the government House leaders and the whips on exactly how this will be done, because I say right now that unless this committee can be given adequate time, the people of Ontario and members of this House are being shortchanged.

Mr. Foulds: Very briefly, I urge the Treasurer and the government benches to please not reject automatically the idea of a select committee on plant closures and shutdowns. It is a matter of urgency, not merely with Goodyear, but also with the layoffs and structural things that are wrong with our economy in northern Ontario, and I am afraid will be subsequently in southern Ontario, eastern Ontario and all over the province.

15:20

However, the best resolution would be for the House leaders to come to an amicable decision next Thursday morning about the fate of this committee's motion and report. If it is the decision of the government and others that the select committee on plant shutdowns and closures cannot be re-established, then, of course, the standing committee on finance and economic affairs will do its duty as outlined in this motion, that is, consider these matters. We will have to find the time and there will have to be rescheduling of the other important matters before the committee.

However, it is absolutely essential that if we consider the layoffs at Goodyear in Etobicoke to be very serious and very important, then think of how much more important the 250 layoffs already announced at Kimberly-Clark in Terrace Bay, just as an example, the 75 softwood layoffs in that community and the woods layoffs in Nakina, Geraldton and other communities are in comparison. They are far more devastating. It is as if half a million people in this community were automatically out of work. Those things this Legislature and some committee must look at, and they must look at them soon.

Ms. E. J. Smith: On this point, I would like to --

Mr. Speaker: On the same point? We had agreed that a representative from each party would speak, unless there is further agreement? No?

On motion by Mr. D. R. Cooke, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MEMBERS' STANDARDS OF OFFICE ACT / LOI DE 1986 SUR LES NORMES EXIGÉES DES MEMBRES DE L'ASSEMBLÉE DANS L'EXERCICE DE LEURS FONCTIONS

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 160, An Act to provide for Greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office.

L'hon. M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 160, Loi assurant une plus grande certitude quant au rapprochement des intérêts personnels des membres de l'Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres avec les devoirs de leurs fonctions.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 161, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The bill does two major things. First of all, it creates the office of senior judge for the unified family court in Hamilton as an aid to the efficient management of that court.

In the second place, it changes the role of the official guardian in custody and access cases to allow that office to play a more useful part in the more difficult cases where the court and the parties need the help of an impartial public figure whose mandate is to facilitate the best possible arrangements for the children.

At present, the official guardian must investigate and report to the court in every one of the thousands of divorce cases annually in which the spouses have children, regardless of whether there is any custody or access problem. Even if all arrangements have been agreed upon by the spouses to the satisfaction of everyone, this automatic procedure saps the limited resources of the official guardian's office to deal with cases in which intervention would be beneficial and important and overwhelms the office with the processing of routine cases involving warehouses of paper.

The amendment will permit the official guardian to become involved in any custody or access case on request by a court or any other person and will allow the official guardian to intervene in a case where any information comes to light that seems to merit an investigation.

The bill also contains a number of small housekeeping amendments to the Courts of Justice Act that have come to our attention in the past year and a half.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION AGENTS ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 162, An Act to provide for the Registration of Rental Accommodation Agents.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: The bill provides for the registration of rental accommodation agents, who are defined as "persons who, among other things, provide information for a fee concerning the location and availability of rental accommodation."

It also sets out maximum fees that may be charged by such agents for their service and provides for the refunding of any amounts paid in excess of the maximum fee.

I will be happy to answer any questions from the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) on this bill at the next sitting of the House.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before the orders of the day, I want to table copies of three public opinion polls. I believe copies have been distributed to critics, but these will be tabled.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I also have the answer to question 383, the interim answers to questions 410 and 457 to 487, inclusive, and the response to the petition presented to the House, sessional paper 186, standing in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Monday, December 1].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 1, An Act to amend the Succession Law Reform Act;

Bill 18, An Act to amend the Off-Road Vehicles Act;

Bill 48, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act;

Bill 58, An Act to amend the Time Act;

Bill 113, An Act to amend the Homemakers and Nurses Services Act;

Bill 66, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act, 1982;

Bill 119, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act;

Bill 120, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act;

Bill 121, An Act to amend the Land Titles Act;

Bill 122, An Act to amend the Registry Act.

15:30

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

Mr. McFadden moved, on behalf of Mr. Gillies, second reading of Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ITALO-CANADIAN CENTENNIAL CLUB ACT

Mr. Poirier moved, on behalf of Mr. Polsinelli, second reading of Bill Pr30, An Act to revive Italo-Canadian Centennial Club.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF WINDSOR (WINDSOR-DETROIT TUNNEL) ACT

Mr. Warner moved, on behalf of Mr. D. S. Cooke, second reading of Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TRACO INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT

Mr. McFadden moved second reading of Bill Pr38, An Act to revive Traco Investments Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

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

On section 18:

Mr. Gregory: I want to put a few remarks on the record with regard to Bill 7, specifically section 18, subsections 1 to 5.

Before doing that, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) -- he is absent, but I congratulate him anyway -- and the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty). They have shown a great deal of courage in their remarks and in taking the position they have. As my colleague says, they are independent thinkers.

It always takes courage, when one is a member of government, to take a position contrary to the stated position of the government caucus. One does not usually get to cabinet that way. Nevertheless, it has happened. As a matter of fact, sometimes it is a very good way of getting there.

The two members have shown, on a very emotional issue, a great deal of courage in speaking their minds and truly representing their constituents. I hope that more members on the government side will do likewise, state their constituents' views and come out in support of their constituents' positions, rather than following a rigid party line on an amendment that is clearly wrong.

Yesterday the government House leader in the few short remarks he made stated that the former Progressive Conservative government was very forthright and in the forefront in bringing forward bills for the protection of human rights in Ontario. They have been very active in doing this; otherwise, we would not have a bill here to amend. I do not think it has ever been the case that governments of any stripe have not taken proper actions to protect the rights of their citizens.

The intent was the same in this act, except that somehow along the way it got sidetracked by a rather frivolous amendment in the standing committee on administration of justice that was made almost on a last-minute basis. It was carried. As a matter of fact, some of our members, in a careless moment, voted for it. When the situation was analysed, there was some regret that this happened. No one is at fault, but it is something that did happen.

What surprises me is that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) virtually adopted this amendment without any opposition to it at all. His members on that committee did not have to support it. Government members never have to support amendments by opposition committee members. They are not forced to do that. It strikes me it may be something he wanted done but was afraid at that time to bring in. I do not know.

It has brought in something that is totally inconsistent with the act. It was brought in with the thought that this would bring the Ontario statute in line with the Charter of Rights. This is totally wrong, and there is not one member in this House who can point out where it is bringing it in line. In fact, it is going further.

The Charter of Rights makes the distinction that discrimination shall not occur on the basis of sex. It does not take a genius to know they are talking about the difference between men and women. That was the intention. By adding sexual orientation, we are putting an entirely new connotation on this section, something that was not intended by the Attorney General when he drafted this bill. It probably was not intended for a purpose, because it was recognized by the legislative draftsmen that this had no place in this act. They are going far beyond what is required.

15:40

Something is bothering me about the bill, particularly about the remarks the Attorney General made to open the debate on this bill. I am looking at Hansard of November 25, 1986. He states: "This bill proposes to introduce the words `sexual orientation' into that catalogue of groups. `Sexual orientation' for the purpose of this debate involves any orientation of a sexual nature that is not inconsistent with the law; that is not prohibited by the law. It goes without saying that as a result of amendments to the Criminal Code at least a decade ago, not only is a homosexual or bisexual orientation not unlawful, but any act that results from it, unless specifically prohibited, is also not unlawful. None is prohibited, except the general list of offences which can be committed by either homosexuals or heterosexuals against children, women in certain cases or animals."

The thing that bothers me is that he says "for the purpose of this debate." In the amendments, nowhere does it give a definition of what is or is not included. In the act, under explanatory notes for section 18, which is difficult to find in this book, but I will come up with it in a moment, all it gives for section 18 is "self-explanatory."

If it is self-explanatory, I have to read from section 18 and what it says. It says "sexual orientation" and does not make any distinction about the various sexual orientations there can be, except in the words of the Attorney General when he says, "Those that are clearly against the law." I suppose we are talking about bestiality, paedophilia, I do not know.

Mr. Leluk: Necrophilia.

Mr. Gregory: All these things that are clearly against the law. However, they can only be used if a person has been convicted.

If someone applies to rent an apartment in a building and has a sexual orientation, let us say bestiality, for one. He has that orientation and, in fact, confesses that to the landlord and says, "I have that leaning, but I have never been convicted of it." The landlord has no grounds to refuse to rent him that apartment, none whatsoever. If the person made a complaint and the landlord said, "He told me this," it is simple; the person can say, "I told you no such thing." In other words, it has to be proved, and how does one prove that sort of thing? I do not know. One would have to be pretty fast.

There are no guarantees in there at all. It is not clearly spelled out in the act. The Attorney General says: "Take my word for it. For purposes of this debate, this is what it will mean." If the Attorney General were here, I would tell him he is not going to be around here for ever. I will be surprised if he is around here very long at all, but he might not be around in, say, five or 10 years from now.

The interpretation of this act is going to have to be left up to some bureaucrat. Bureaucrats will interpret it, as they do, according to the letter of the act. They do not put any interpretation beyond that on it. It will simply mean then that the "for the purposes of this debate" argument will not be there anywhere. It is not in the bill. That civil servant could interpret that to mean sexual orientation of any kind. It is going to be very difficult to enforce, notwithstanding that, in my opinion, it is not fair.

There is another item I want to cover in statements the Attorney General made. On page 51 of Instant Hansard, he says, "This amendment deprives no person of an existing right." If this was not so ridiculous it would be funny. What about the right of the landlord? What about the right of the employer? That is surely a right. It is not only the homosexual or the lesbian who has rights; the employer or landlord also has some rights.

He says, "This amendment deprives no person of an existing right." He goes on: "There is no person anywhere in Ontario who loses a lawful right if this amendment is passed. It deprives nobody of the right to judge the competence of individuals objectively, whether it be for employment or housing. It does not alter the law of marriage. It does not downgrade the family as the central institution of our country. It does not alter or modify individual or societal values."

With great respect, I think the Attorney General has his eyes closed. I hear from many of my constituents -- not only my constituents but also people from across Ontario -- that there is a threat here. There is a threat to their individual or societal values. It is a severe threat.

I have some letters, which I am going to get into later, that will demonstrate the concerns of my constituents, and I reflect their concerns.

There is just one more item I wanted to touch on in Hansard. The Attorney General says, "Everybody understands that in order to make this system work, we must regard moral questions as personal matters, not governmental matters, because as soon as a moral question becomes a governmental matter, then we have a tyranny over which there is no control." Amen.

That is what they are trying to set up now -- a tyranny; bedroom police. That is what they are doing over there. If this is not a moral question, I do not know what is. I do not understand what the government is doing in it.

It is not a matter of homosexual-bashing, not whatsoever. I have not done any of that and I do not intend to. I do not believe in harassment; nor do I believe in special rights for certain segments of our community. Going back to what I said earlier, that is exactly what this is. It is not talking about sex; it is talking about sexual orientation, and there is a big difference.

The Human Rights Code sets out the following categories:

"(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status or handicap."

None of these categories is behavioural. For the first time, we are introducing into this act a behavioural pattern; that is what this is. If we are going to introduce behavioural patterns into this act and ban discrimination because of them, then where are we going to cover the alcoholics? Where are we going to cover the drug addicts? Where are we going to cover all those people who have different preferences and different behaviour patterns from the norm? That is what we are doing here. We are including sexual preference, sexual orientation, which is certainly a behavioural thing and no different in my mind from alcoholism.

While it is true my opinion may not be prevalent, I do regard homosexuality as an illness, an unfortunate thing. That happens to be my view. It is not shared by everybody, and I recognize that. That is why I certainly do not want to get into overcriticism of that particular group. I feel we are being unfairly asked to give special rights to one group, excluding all the other groups with behavioural patterns that are different from the norm. I very much resent being asked to do that.

15:50

We have all been associated with people whose behavioural patterns are not similar to our own. We have all been associated with alcoholics, maybe in the family, and if one group with a special behavioural pattern is going to get these special rights, we want to know why the others groups are not going to get them. I feel it has no place in the bill. This is really why I think this amendment is totally inconsistent with the bill.

I recommend to the Attorney General that he voluntarily withdraw it, if he can at this point. I guess he cannot, but I suppose he can vote against it, although he will not. This amendment was introduced in the standing committee on administration of justice, and it is not consistent with the act in any way.

The amendment is so controversial. It must be apparent to everyone in this room. What is wrong then in making a special case, if that is what is required, to get some additional input from some of the interested groups in our society? Surely we are not in such a headlong rush to do this that we do not care what the public says. I care what the public says, and I am reflecting what my public says. On a piece of legislation as important and controversial as this one, we should be making sure we hear what every segment of our society has to say on the matter. The party over there might get a tremendous surprise when it finds out.

I look at members in the Liberal Party from rural communities and I know the difficult time they are going to have with this. It is quite apparent how difficult it is going to be. They are between a rock and a hard place. They either do what their constituents want or-- The great Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) on television made the statement, "This is what my public wants and this is what I want." All of a sudden, there is conversion on the road to Damascus. We should have some quotations from that minister -- we will have some later -- about his feelings on this subject in the past. It will be very interesting this afternoon. I am not going to use them, but another member of our party is going to. He has a much better way with words than I have. They are very interesting. Even that minister is going to find out from his constituents what they think of statements such as that.

The members are between a rock and a hard place. They are stuck with supporting a bill for caucus solidarity and, in doing that, turning off their constituents. They can either do that or they can go along with their constituents and make their leader very angry. We are fortunate over here. We do not have that problem because we have decided, and our leader totally agrees, that we will have a free vote. We can vote any way we want. We will vote according to our conscience. That is what we are going to do.

I feel sorry for the people over there who will not be able to vote according to their conscience. That is unfortunate on something as serious as this. When those members go back to their farms and rural communities and when the government House leader goes back to South Dumfries or wherever it is and speaks to the people at Earl's Shell and tells them what he has done and what he intends to do, I am quite sure he will get a rude awakening. I feel sorry for him in that regard.

I feel very strongly that we as members are elected by the people not simply because we are going to reflect their views. It is impossible to do that, as we all know. You cannot have representation by consensus. I do not think you can do that. You cannot take a poll every time you decide to do something. I am convinced that people elect you to use common sense. They elect you because they feel you have that common sense and can use it. They do not expect you to do what they tell you every time because there will always be two or three opinions on every subject. All you can do is use the brains God gave you. On this issue, I wonder whether the members opposite are using the brains God gave them. I do not know whether they will find out from Him, but they will find out from their constituents, who of course come second in a politician's life.

I hope they have some time for sober reflection over the weekend and that they stay off Ontario Provincial Police boats and stay away from Liquor Control Board of Ontario warehouses. I understand there is a lot of loose booze floating around there and it is cheap.

I want to take a moment to demonstrate, as other members have done, some of the concerns of my constituents. I do not intend to go through a raft of letters, but I wish to put one or two on record. I will not mention names. I do not know whether anybody wants the names. It might be embarrassing to people if I did.

This letter is addressed to me.

"Dear Sir:

"I wish to strongly protest the recommendation of the government that homosexuals be given special legal protection, and the disaster that could ultimately follow such condoning of homosexual behaviour. No other group is thus protected under a law based on such immoral lifestyle."

This is a letter; it is not necessarily my opinion.

"My sincere desire is that our government will continue to subscribe to such laws and extension of rights that will continue to uphold Canada's moral integrity and the respect of all her people.

"I remain, yours truly."

This is from another gentleman who is also from my riding.

"I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed legislation that would give special protection to homosexuals. The government claims its decision to give special legal protection to homosexuals was based on section 15 of the Charter of Rights. The charter states that everyone has the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, sex, religion, age, etc. It refers to discrimination on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation."

That is an important difference that seems to have escaped the government party.

"Sexual orientation refers to an optional lifestyle, whereas sex refers to the inherent characteristics of being a male or a female."

I do not think anybody in this House would fail to know the difference there.

"Amending the human rights legislation would mean society is condoning homosexual activity. Homosexuals have the same civil rights every other Canadian has and they are protected by the Charter of Rights and by federal and provincial human rights legislation. No other group is protected under law based on behaviour.

"If such a law is passed, citizens would be punished for taking into account a homosexual's moral character in making some important decisions such as who will be accepted in their house, as a teacher for their child, as an associate in their business, etc.

"Homosexuality is a psychosexual disorder. Refusing to pass laws giving special privileges to a homosexual is not discrimination. Many homosexuals recruit the young. With new legislation, such seduction becomes permissible and acceptable.

"The homosexual is without doubt a proper subject for the exercise of compassion on a personal basis. Sympathy is not shown by pretending that homosexual activity is normal behaviour. True compassion comes to the homosexual from treating him as a responsible, moral being who can change or control his inclinations. This proposed legislation would only harm homosexuals themselves and society as a whole."

I do not think there is much point in going over many letters. It becomes rhetorical. However, I hope the Attorney General will take into consideration what he is going to do and what is going to happen if this amendment passes. He will turn normally honest, upright people into criminals
-- that is precisely what he will do -- because rather than go along with this stupid law, they will break it. They will find some other reason not to rent to the person whom this covers, thereby breaking the law. You cannot legislate morality, no matter what my friends in the new demagogue party down here think. You cannot legislate people into doing things that are beyond their normal characteristics. It is just impossible.

16:00

I can speak only of Christian homes, because they are the only ones I know, but if someone is raised in a Christian home, there is a natural abhorrence to this type of behaviour. All the screaming and legislation that one wants to bring up is not going to change this person's background. It is not bigotry in any way. It is the principles they have come to believe in; it is their definition of a family, and one cannot change that, much as one might want to. It is not intolerance in any way.

I find it shocking that when one has a view other than that of support for this type of legislation, if he opposes it, he becomes a dinosaur, and intolerant to boot. Boy, if an intolerant dinosaur is in the way, you had better get out of the way.

I find this rather disgusting, because intolerance is not all on one side. I would like to take a moment to read a letter I received from a pastor in the United Church. He wrote in answer to a letter I wrote stating my position on this bill. I would appreciate it if members would listen carefully, because I want them to understand that intolerance and hypocrisy are not always on one side:

"Dear Mr. Gregory:

"Regarding your letter of November 16 in support of continuing discrimination against lesbians and homosexual persons on the basis of the way in which they communicate affection between themselves. Homosexual `behaviour' is communication, nothing else, albeit outside of the conventional `family' about which you profess grave concern. I gather, therefore, that you would also favour discrimination against unmarried heterosexuals who also communicate affection through extramarital intercourse, for they also violate the traditional definition of a family.

"A further point regarding `behaviour': speaking is also a form of `communication behaviour,' yet, I doubt that even you would tolerate discrimination on the basis of language or inability to speak clearly.

"Regarding the definition of the family, I suggest that you read Matthew 12:46 to 50, in which Jesus Christ is quoted as saying: `Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?...The person who does what my Father in heaven wants him to do is my brother, my sister, my mother.' In other words, the mark of family is love, respect, trustworthiness, forgiveness. Such a definition permits childless widows and other lonely persons to be a part of a `family.'"

Here we are getting the intolerance:

"I do share one of your possible concerns regarding the extension of family social benefits to homosexual partners. However, I have the same concern about extending social benefits to common law wives and husbands.

"Please rethink your position. Your position is discriminatory and inconsistent."

I would ask members to judge from that letter whose position is inconsistent and discriminatory.

I read that only to demonstrate that there is room for improving the approach to this bill on all sides. I do not think anybody wants to be intolerant; nobody wants to go around bashing people for whatever reason. But I have to say that this amendment, in the eyes of the people of Ontario, whom we are supposed to represent, is dead wrong. When we come to a vote on this, I will be very pleased to join members of my party and I hope a substantial number of members of the government party, in defeating this amendment.

Ms. E. J. Smith: I am pleased to speak to this today and address it in two separate ways. We have heard a great deal about the free vote versus the nonfree vote, and I would like to address that. Then I will speak briefly to the bill itself.

Like many other people here, I was in city politics before I came to provincial politics. I want to make clear what a different position this puts you in. As a member of city council, you run on your own record and abilities; you say what you have to say to people; they look at your record from past elections or past years of service and they decide on you as an individual. At least that is the way it was in London, where we had no party politics that were in any way discernible. In the smaller community, they pick you as an individual.

When I decided to run provincially, there was a distinct difference right from the beginning. In the first place, one of the most important things I had to do in conscience was to discover for myself what the Liberal policy was and identify for myself that this was truly where I was as a person. Having done this, I ran, and on that basis, I present myself to you as a Liberal.

People do not very often come to you and ask, "How do you stand on this?" More often, they ask you, "How does your party stand on such and such an issue?" It is as a member of that party that you run. They send out questionnaires at election time asking, "Where does the party stand on these matters?" There is an importance in what we do that goes beyond ourselves and our own individual opinions, because we have sold ourselves to the public as a member of a group, in this case, the party.

We all know there are occasional issues that are handled differently, but by and large, this country recognizes that, provincially and federally, they vote for people in a party and they expect the leadership of that party to hold that group together and provide consistent government, in keeping with what that party ran on.

With that in mind, many people come out and work for you, walk the streets with you, put up money for you, people who never saw you before. They do it because of a consistent history of that party in which they believe. You are no longer just a single person as you were in city council. You are a member of a team and a part of a team whose very togetherness makes it possible to govern. We can look at countries such as France, if we want to see the chaos we can get into when we have too much individual thinking and not enough of an understandable platform with which people can identify.

I am happy that in our caucus we discussed this issue very freely. Everybody expressed his or her point of view. Then, as a caucus, we decided where we would stand and we decided at the caucus level that we would stand together. That was not a chance thing or a foisted thing, although the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has shown great leadership. It was with the caucus that he made his decision and it is as a caucus that we have decided to stand together.

Speaking to the bill itself, I get very tired of hearing the term "special rights." What in the name of heaven is anybody talking about? We stand here as a party and say we wish to guarantee human rights in jobs, in employment and in services.

If someone stood up at the back of the hall and asked, "Does that include blacks; are you giving those human rights to blacks?" we would say, "Of course." If they asked, "Are you giving those human rights to Jews?" we would say, "Of course." If they asked, "Are you giving human rights to women?" we would say, "Of course." When someone from the other party asks, "Are you giving those human rights to homosexuals?" we answer, "Of course."

They are not special rights. They are the same rights the bill gives to everybody else in this province. I wish I could be guaranteed I would never hear this term "special rights" used again because there are no special rights; there are just human rights for human beings.

16:10

Because I have some religious background -- in fact, I once won a gold medal in apologetics in high school -- it particularly bothers me to see these special rights being taken away in the name of religion or in the name of God. Joan Baez did a folk song called With God on Our Side, in which she sang very meaningfully of the many terrible things that have been done in our history in the name of God.

We had the Spanish Inquisition. They said, "Better to burn one man at the stake than to let him risk the souls of other human beings that they might burn in hell," and so they justified the Inquisition. We had the Crusades where Christians went to Christianize other people. I heard Arnold Toynbee about the Jewish situation in the Second World War. He said it was unprecedented in human history except for the Crusades. We had a time in slavery when people actually said that in religion, Negroes could be property because they did not have the same souls as whites.

All this has been done in the name of God and religion. If we took all the organizations that we have built in the name of religion and put them aside from our thinking; if we took only the words in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and learned only from the words in those gospels as if Jesus Christ were here to vote on this Legislature, what would those words tell us about how he would vote?

To me, the Bible says all human beings are indeed a family and that a family does indeed strengthen itself by loving one another. That is what this legislation is about. I ask all members to consider it in that light.

Mr. Hennessy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I would like to say to the honourable whip that she talks about party policy --

Mr. Chairman: We do not have comments and question period.

Mr. Hennessy: I think she is all wrong anyway.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Marland: I rise today to speak to this amendment. Obviously, Bill 7 has been well described by the previous speakers, but for the sake of the record I want to make absolutely certain that my comments are addressed to section 18 of Bill 7, which is the amendment to the Human Rights Code of 1981, being chapter 53, that it be amended by inserting after "sex" in the fourth line "sexual orientation." There are further subsections 2, 3, 4 and 5 that all have the same addition of the words "sexual orientation" after "sex."

At the outset, I want to say that I was very disappointed yesterday, when my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) was speaking, to notice the humour and the reaction demonstrated by the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), a member of the New Democratic Party --

Mr. Wildman: Was Villeneuve serious?

Mrs. Marland: -- and by the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith), who is the whip for the Liberal government. I found it rather interesting that when the Attorney General presented his bill --

Mr. Wildman: It is a good example of --

Mrs. Marland: I would actually appreciate it if the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) would listen to my comments, even for a moment. There was rapt attention in this House for the Attorney General. I would suggest that the reason there was rapt attention was that we all have found this a difficult section of the bill to deal with.

With respect, given the fact that there was absolute silence when the Attorney General was speaking, I feel that the very least courtesy of the House would be to extend that same courtesy to every other member as we speak on a subject that is not easy for any one of us, just as it has not been easy for any one of us to reach a decision about which way we are going to vote on this bill.

Yesterday, when the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry was speaking and laughter resulted from one of the comments in his speech -- it was a serious comment; it was not a humorous comment -- I felt the laughter was in poor taste. The only thing I suggest is that it was nervous laughter in reaction to the tension under which all of us have felt ourselves in dealing with this subject.

First of all, I want to deal with the process. It is rather interesting that we have this so-called tremendously open government. This government found it was perfectly satisfactory to spend in excess of 12 months touring the province and getting public input on Bill 30, the separate school funding bill. The same government found it was quite acceptable to set up a special committee to look into the liquor licensing laws of this province and to fund the expense of that committee's travels around this province.

I have to wonder where the priorities are. If the priorities are that it is more important to ask the public what they think about the liquor licence laws than to ask the public what they think about the Human Rights Code of this province, then that says a great deal about the Liberal government. If its priority is that liquor licensing is more important than human rights, then so be it for that government.

Fortunately, I do not serve in that government. Having just heard the reason that the whip of this government, the member for London South, gave for her support of the government's position on this bill, I guess that if I was ever proud to be a Progressive Conservative, I have never been more proud than at this moment, especially if that is the description of what being a Liberal means on November 26, 1986.

Mr. Mancini: It is the 27th.

Mrs. Marland: Thank you, the 27th. I have been asked why it is that only the PCs are opposed to this legislation, this section. I have been asked why it is that the Liberal Party seems to be supporting it. My simple answer has been, "You will have to ask the Liberals."

The answer for us as Progressive Conservatives is very clear. Thanks to the fairness and the tolerance of our leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), the members of our party are not being told what to do. We are being allowed to be progressive, in fact, and it is in our progressive-thinking party that we are being permitted a free vote, unlike the Liberal government, as members have just heard, which, I understand, is telling its cabinet members how they must vote, which is to support the bill of their Attorney General. Beyond the cabinet, I understand there is a very strong coaxing -- I do not know what other word I can use to describe that -- of their back-benchers also to support the bill.

16:20

The true story will show when we have the vote itself, and when that vote takes place, the number of Liberal members who can, in all good conscience, vote in support of their legislation will be very interesting. We understand there is quite a split in the Liberal caucus on this issue, and I understand that very well. We all know it is not an easy subject to deal with.

Because of the very personal nature of our own morality and values, I would have thought that if the Liberal Party in Ontario wanted to be representative of the people who elect their members, it would give its members the right and the opportunity to represent those people who elect them by having a free vote.

It was interesting a few moments ago to hear the member for London South compare this legislation to the history of experiences and tragedies that have been faced by sectors of our society throughout the world. She mentioned the blacks, the Jews and women. The presentation of the Attorney General included the Irish. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) yesterday included the Scots. What I find particularly interesting, not only as a woman, is that all those categories that have been referred to by those three speakers are all categories into which a person is born. They are not, I respectfully suggest, a category that any one person can choose.

On the subject of choice, in dealing with the subject of sexual orientation, I decided to be absolutely fair and read as much as I could on the subject. I did not want to come purely from my own inheritance of opinion on this subject. For that reason, I have read this document thoroughly. This document is called: Discrimination Against Lesbians and Gay Men, the Ontario Human Rights Omission, a Brief to the Members of the Ontario Legislature. The name at the bottom reads, the Coalition for Gay Rights in Ontario. The date on this document is April 1986.

In the preamble, it identifies the Coalition for Gay Rights in Ontario as being formed in 1975 to work towards legal equality for lesbians and gay men. It consists of 23 member organizations and several hundred individual members throughout the province. If I would comment at any point on this document, it was with some relief that I noted the membership is only several hundred out of a population of nine million.

On this first page there is a reference which says, "The majority of Canadians have come to see the issue as a matter of the private business of those concerned and no one else." On the next page it goes on to say: "This brief addresses some Ontario laws and government policies that will have to be revised in order to comply with the intent of section 15."

Concern is expressed about "the unwarranted police use of video surveillance equipment in public washrooms and the sense of suffering of those charged with sex offences as a result of such activity." Under a section entitled "Video Surveillance of Public Washrooms," it states: "Since 1983, 183 men have been charged for gay sex offences in public washrooms in Orillia, Welland, Oakville, Hamilton, Kitchener and St. Catharines. Several hundred are charged every year in Toronto. The increasing use of video technology and other elaborate surveillance methods to make these arrests has raised a great deal of concern."

I have to say that if this group is saying that the majority of Canadians have come to see the issue as a matter of the private business of those concerned and no one else, I will have to have an explanation of why they are conducting their private business in public washrooms.

I read further from this brief. According to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which recently lobbied Ontario's Solicitor General: "The problem is one of police priority and disproportionate punishment. Everyone's privacy is violated by such policing tactics. Enforcement tactics depend as they must upon the nature of the threat to public interest. The police have rarely mounted a similar surveillance campaign, for example, to crack down on jaywalking or the illegal consumption of alcohol at professional sports events."

Again, with respect, I suggest that homosexual activity, in the pure physical sense, in a public washroom cannot be equated to jaywalking or illegal consumption of alcohol at professional sports events.

I also read in this document, pages and pages of examples of terrible crimes that have been committed against gay people. As I read the account of those horrible crimes, the horror of those crimes indeed registers with me, as does the horror of any crime of brutality and violence to any human being. It does not matter who they are. My reaction would be the same as everyone else's. It is pure horror and it is tremendous concern on my part for any of those crimes.

As these pages go on listing assaults on lesbians and gay men -- and there are pages and pages in here of those kinds of assaults -- I see nowhere listed any mention of the young Emanuel Jaques, a boy murdered by gay men. If we are going to look at an issue, we must look at all sides of that issue. I certainly have a grave concern for crimes of violence against any human being. One cannot list only the crimes against the gay community and not mention Emanuel Jaques, a 12-year-old shoeshine boy in Toronto, who, after being brutally mutilated and abused, finally succumbed to death by having his head held in a washbasin of water.

16:30

Having studied this brief, I thought I might have had a greater understanding of why the rights of these people need to be enshrined as a separate category. Unfortunately, I did not obtain that from the brief.

I would now like to refer to Hansard of Tuesday, November 25, when the Attorney General presented the legislation. At the very beginning of his presentation -- and I am happy to see the Attorney General is now back in the Legislature this afternoon -- he said:

"This bill proposes to introduce the words `sexual orientation' into that catalogue of groups. `Sexual orientation' for the purpose of this debate involves any orientation of a sexual nature that is not inconsistent with the law; that is not prohibited by the law."

That is a quotation of the Attorney General. Where he says "any orientation of a sexual nature," I have to know what that means. This bill does not tell us all the different types of activities that are legal under the guise of sexual orientation. It does not tell me what "any orientation of a sexual nature" means. It simply says any that is not inconsistent with the law and not prohibited by the law. It may well be that anything that involves orientation of a sexual nature that is not against the law might still be totally unacceptable to me and to those people whom I am elected to represent.

Further in the Attorney General's presentation to this House he says:

"I want to refer to the report made by the social Ontario conference of the Catholic bishops, because that conference reported precisely the same thing. In 1979, in a paper called Witness to Justice, that conference of bishops -- they were not confronting any amendments; they were commenting on a factual situation -- said this, in summary, "`Homosexual men and women are being faced with discrimination in jobs, experience and housing.'"

I guess I have to look at that and ask, "Why is that?" The interesting thing is that if the public were to look at me when I go for a job, or apply for a house or for social assistance or for any public service, they do not know whether I am gay. There is not anyone in this Legislature today who knows whether I am gay. I am a wife, I am a mother and I am middle-aged, but I do not go around anywhere saying all of those things. I suppose perhaps the only thing that is obvious is my age, and when one is 52 years of age, that is probably a very easy thing to identify. It happens that I am heterosexual, but no one here knows that necessarily, just as no one here would know whether I am gay.

When I look at communities of people being discriminated against, I have greater concern for another group of people who are discriminated against, especially in the subject of housing. That is the group of young mothers who reside in Interim Place, which is a shelter for battered wives and children in my riding. Those mothers phone and find that apartments are available. When they get there and admit they are single mothers with children on social assistance, suddenly there is no apartment for rent. I have gone myself and obtained accommodation for some of these mothers because I believe that is the worst kind of discrimination.

If I were gay and wanted to rent an apartment or to apply for a job, there would be nothing to stop me from doing these things unless I demonstrated my difference. That is the whole point of this debate in this Legislature. It is not the fact that people are gay or lesbian that impedes them from access to any of those areas; it is the fact that they choose to demonstrate that they are gay or lesbian. As with myself, one would not know whether I am a lesbian.

In his presentation to this House, the Attorney General went on to say, "This amendment deprives no person of an existing right." I found that particularly interesting, because I have to ask how this amendment gives to this community of people something that does not now exist in law.

For that argument, I will refer to Webster's dictionary. Under the word "race," which is currently included in the Ontario Human Rights Code, it says: "A class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits or characteristics." The Funk and Wagnalls dictionary under the word "race" says: "Any group of people or any grouping of peoples having or assumed to have common characteristics, habits, appearance, etc.; any class of being having characteristics uniting them or differentiating them from others." Since race is already listed as a reason why a person is not to be discriminated against in the Human Rights Code, I respectfully suggest to the Attorney General that that protection is already there.

The final reference I wish to make to the Attorney General's speech to this Legislature comes from where he talks about legislating morality. He says: "...all kinds of newcomers from different countries who subscribe to different religions, who have different moral views and who sometimes have none. But we say that as long as they obey the law, their morality, the ethical code they select to govern the relations among them and with their god or their maker, is a personal matter for them."

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

16:40

I have to ask the Attorney General how he perceives the Criminal Code. I suggest that today we do have legislation over morality and values, thank goodness. We have a Criminal Code that reflects the values of society. We have a Criminal Code that says it is an offence to kill, to assault, to commit any crime of violence. We then have the areas of forgery, extortion, fraud, theft, even impaired driving. I might also mention abortion. How interesting that it is illegal under the Criminal Code to kill, to steal, to drive impaired or to have an abortion. How can anyone say we are not today legislating values and morality?

I am grateful we have a Criminal Code as a federal statute that is protecting our values and morals. As a result, we in Canada live in a peaceful society, except where individuals choose to violate the Criminal Code.

The Attorney General, with his professional background, suggests we cannot legislate morals. I will state quite openly that I have no professional background in the area of specialty of our Attorney General. Yet how can he say that "as soon as a moral question becomes a governmental matter, then we have tyranny over which there is no control?" I suggest that without the Criminal Code, which does legislate our values and morality, we would have a complete society without control.

In summation, may I say quite simply I am totally opposed to this amendment. It is not necessary to protect the interests of anyone by this amendment, because those people are in a position to protect their own interests. Gay or lesbian people in our society in Ontario can protect their own interests. If they choose to remain gay or lesbian, they can protect their own interests by simply doing one thing: not demonstrating what they choose to be.

As I have said, there are many more people who are gay men or lesbian women than we would ever know, because they do not choose to tell the world; they do not choose to demonstrate that fact. While they make a choice in the majority to be gay or to be lesbian, they also choose to protect their own interests in the area this legislation addresses in terms of housing, jobs and social services. If they wish to protect their interests, they simply do not demonstrate what they have chosen to be.

Personally, I do not believe that homosexual and lesbian relationships are normal and I do not believe that these kinds of relationships should gain recognition and status by being elevated by an amendment giving those relationships the same status as race, colour, religion, creed, ancestry and marital status. Therefore, I believe they should not be enshrined in the Human Rights Code of Ontario, especially since it was not found to be necessary to do it in the Canadian Charter of Rights.

On the subject of the Canadian Charter of Rights, I want briefly to refer to the fact that the brief from the Coalition for Gay Rights in Ontario addressed what happened with the Charter of Rights. I want to put this on the record because we are told the reason we are dealing with section 18 of Bill 7 is that the intent of the entire bill is to bring Ontario statutes in compliance with the federal charter of rights.

I read from this brief: "At this important point in Ontario's history, our government is bringing the province's statutes in line with the new federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15, the equality rights section of the charter, states several grounds on which it is illegal to discriminate. It reads in part, `Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.'"

The emphasis in that quotation is that the federal statute says "the benefit of the law without discrimination, in particular," and then lists those categories. The brief goes on to say, "With the inclusion of the phrase `in particular,' section 15 is not limited to those specified grounds as in the Ontario Human Rights Code. While the charter was being drafted a number of groups and individuals expressed their concerns that discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation ought to be prohibited."

One such query, from the human rights committee of the Ottawa local of the United Auto Workers, received this response from the former federal Minister of Justice, Mark MacGuigan. He said, "The list of grounds of discrimination contained in section 15 is not exhaustive. Thus, while it is true that certain grounds of discrimination are expressly prohibited, this enumeration does not detract from the general prohibition found in the section. Therefore, express prohibition of the specific forms of discrimination on the basis of marital status, political affiliation and sexual orientation is not necessary." The section we are dealing with today is not necessary either.

Our society today has enough difficulty coping with all the adverse influences and decadence which constantly challenge our morals and our values. We must hold to what we believe in and defend those standards and goals for the future of our great province and country. I believe in the family as the cornerstone of our society. I believe in and cherish the normal, human relationships God created. I shall always be grateful for the opportunity to do whatever I can as a member of this Legislature to preserve and protect our society and the people and families who also cherish normal morals and values.

I thank you for this opportunity to take part in this critical debate in the history of Ontario.

16:50

Mr. Sheppard: I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to make a few comments on Bill 7. Before I begin, I would like to congratulate the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) and the member for Grey on their comments. I am sure it was not easy for them to speak against their party's stand on this issue. I admire them both for having been honest and I am certain they will reap further respect among their constituents for their display of courage.

I was amazed that on the late news last night, the Premier said he tried to convince his caucus to vote for this bill. Later on, the Minister of Agriculture and Food said he was surprised that some of the church leaders -- I will not repeat what he said because I do not know exactly what it was, but it was not very complimentary. However, if the members look at Hansard for 1981, they will see that his ideas and comments have changed.

I will be voting against this bill for various reasons. The number one reason is my constituents. Everyone I have heard from requests that I vote against this bill.

I have not had one phone call or letter from my constituents asking me to vote in favour of Bill 7, mainly because of section 18. I received one letter from Metropolitan Toronto, and this afternoon two letters -- one from the member for Ottawa Centre and one from the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) -- and that is the total number of letters I have received asking me to vote for Bill 7.

I will not mention any names, but these are some examples. I had a whole list of them, but after listening for the past two days to the letters that were read in this House, I will read only two or three:

"I am violently opposed to a small but vocal segment of society receiving special legislation, Bill 7, to protect their choice of behaviour, which is a known vehicle of AIDS."

Here is another: "I would like to state my concern regarding the possibility of including any sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code. While it is true that the proposed amendment does not necessarily constitute governmental approval of free sexual orientation, but it is intended to prevent discrimination, this does not constitute a good reason for the amendment, since it would inevitably infringe on the rights of many other people.

"Studies have proven that it is impossible for homosexuals, for example, not to influence and involve others, especially youth, in their lifestyle. The very nature of their abnormality overpowers them to influence others their way. All our children would be further endangered and the moral fibre of our society further eroded if this amendment passes. We strongly urge you to influence a stand for tradition and real morality with this issue."

Here is one I received today: "We do not think homosexuals should have any more rights. Bill 7 gives them special rights. They should not have that. They can live like anybody else and should not have any preference above other people. Bill 7 would give them more rights than anybody else and would force their lifestyle on other people. Their lifestyle is wrong and should not be forced on somebody else."

Here is another: "By this letter I wish to convey my total opposition to this amendment and would ask that you exert your influence in every possible way to remove it from the bill. The phrase `sexual orientation' has many connotations, most of which are not included in the intention of those who have, even in good faith, introduced this amendment. Accepting this orientation as an innovation to the Human Rights Code could damage very seriously the fibre of our society.

"We should see this amendment in perspective as a response by our legislators to a vociferous but extremely small minority and realize" --

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. I remind the people in the gallery not to make any signs.

Mr. Sheppard: -- "that sanctioning this type of behaviour could accentuate the destruction of our families and social institutions, which still form the groundwork for a highly prized social stability."

Here is another from a church in my riding. I will read part of it.

"With regard to the amendment to Bill 7, I seem to detect many negative implications. Allow me to list them, as I see them:

"1. The term `sexual orientation' is very vague, undefined and rather open-ended. It seems to me that such an open term might open the door not only to the homosexual community but also to other fringe groups caught up in such deviant sexual behaviour as undue sexual interest in children or/and animals.

"2. The implication seems to be that groups providing services to families, children and others in need would lose the right to see their own standards of conduct for volunteers and employees. It would also force schools, day care centres, group homes and even churches to employ those whose code of conduct and sexual orientation is incompatible with the establishment, purpose and guidelines of the groups concerned.

"3. The legislation could also affect the traditional rights of religious groups to hire only those staff members whose lifestyle is faithful to the beliefs and practices of the religious community.

"4. This legislation would undermine the unique status of marriage and the family as the fundamental unit of our society.

"5. This legislation, or the amendment, could lead to the eventual legalization of homosexual and lesbian marriages and child adoption. Government and other agencies could then also be obligated to extend all social insurance and other benefits to homosexual partners.

"In summary, I feel the proposed amendment would restrict unduly the freedom and rights of many groups and individuals. The amendment is perceived by us as inappropriate interference with the moral choices and community standards of the people of our great province."

My second reason for voting against this bill is the political ramifications that could follow once this bill was passed. Third, my own personal views and upbringing prevent me from voting yes on this bill.

I am concerned about the quiet way in which the provincial government is planning to insert the term "sexual orientation" into the Ontario Human Rights Code. The government has provided no opportunity for public debate of this proposed amendment.

In 1981, when the Human Rights Code was amended, there was extensive lobbying at the time for this kind of amendment to the code. It was overwhelmingly rejected after more than 150 submissions were made in the public forum. Now, public submissions are not even being accepted.

I am also deeply concerned that the term "sexual orientation" is not defined in the legislation. The term "sexual orientation" not only includes homosexuals but also may include various forms of sexual degradation.

Correspondence I have received from church groups adamantly opposed to the bill argue that such an amendment could remove marriage and the family as the fundamental institution of our society. For example, I quote from a letter I have received from Pastor William Rowland in my riding:

"God loves all people, including homosexuals, but homosexuality is an abomination to God. Canada is a free country and we enjoy our basic freedoms, including the equality of the sexes, male and female. Special recognition to homosexuals' behaviour forces Canadians in Ontario to recognize a lifestyle that is against the laws of God and nature. It is also against our moral convictions and traditional values. This amendment, if passed into law, would have a devastating negative effect on the family unit which is the backbone of any democratic society."

17:00

The member for Ottawa Centre tried to assure us in her letter of October 8, 1986, to the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) that the proposed amendment to include the term "sexual orientation" is not a threat to existing provincial legislation in regard to marriage and adoption. It may not be a threat right now, but I can visualize the breakdown of the family unit in the future when homosexual and lesbian marriages could be legalized. Furthermore, the right to either public or private adoption by two homosexuals surely could be brought forward for debate on the basis of discrimination. In my opinion, giving protected status to homosexuals under the Human Rights Code is exactly the same as saying that homosexuality is an acceptable form of behaviour.

A recent poll conducted by Environics Research indicated that the vast majority of those surveyed do not believe homosexuality is an acceptable form of behaviour. I do not, and I know that the majority of my constituents agree.

This amendment, if passed, would mean that in addition to the rights shared by everyone, homosexuals would have special rights recognizing in law their lifestyles and behaviour. No other group's behaviour is protected under law.

Should we expect smokers and excessive drinkers to be added to the Human Rights Code because their behaviour may adversely affect their chances of employment? Should criminal behaviour also be covered? The words "sexual orientation" would create special privileges with respect to behaviour, behaviour that is not beneficial to the wellbeing of Ontario's population as a whole.

I am not opposed to equality of human rights but I do not believe equality is the issue here. Homosexuals and lesbians are not crying out for equality, but rather are looking for special status. They want to have their sexual lifestyle enshrined in human rights legislation so that it can be legitimized and promoted. I strongly believe there are values and morals worth fighting for, including the right of parents to protect their children from harmful influence, not to mention the continued health of the family unit.

Ordinary men and women look to law and government to provide a foundation of justice and morality. If we place sexual orientation on a list of protected classes that includes race and religion, we will be providing legitimacy to a society-disturbing cause. The law has historically recognized the family as the fundamental social structure in society.

Let us keep in mind that the family is characteristic in terms of heterosexual marriages. For example, the right of parents to scrutinize the moral character and sexual tendencies of those hired to teach their children would be lost. The parents of that child would not only lose their rights but also their moral duty to scrutinize the moral character and conduct of those into whose charge they commit their children.

It is true that the mounting demands and pressures of contemporary life have also put varying stresses on the family. Despite that, the shocks and upheavals of our culture have been absorbed and deflected by the family in day-to-day living. But after all, the family remains the essential building block of society, and its continuing resilience in the face of impossible economic and social tensions is a hallmark to its preservation.

The use of cohesive power to force ordinary people to go against their conscience or religious convictions by compelling them to abandon their moral parent duties is fundamentally contrary to the constitutional freedoms of conscience and religion.

There are further negative implications to the amendment beyond those I have already mentioned.

1. Social agencies that provide service and companionship to children or single parents, such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters, could lose their right to set their own standards for choosing volunteers and employees.

2. Schools, day care centres and group homes could be forced to employ those whose sexual orientation goes against the established purpose and guidelines of the said institutions.

3. The bill could affect the traditional right of religious groups to hire only those whose lifestyle is in tune with the beliefs and practices of the religious community.

4. Government and companies could be forced to extend all spousal insurance and other benefits to homosexual partners.

5. Home owners could lose all freedom in deciding whether to rent to homosexuals.

In conclusion, I urge every member of this House to vote against Bill 7.

M. Pope: C'est un plaisir de participer à ces débats.

As the member for Cochrane South and as a Scot born in Ayr, I rise to defend the Irish from another Scott, namely, the Attorney General of this province, and to take issue with the Treasurer and his references to the Scots yesterday.

I want to deal with this issue because there has been no issue by far in the nine and a half years I have been a member on which I have received more mail than this one. As an example, the community of Iroquois Falls in my riding has approximately 7,500 people. I have received more than 1,500 letters from the people of Iroquois Falls.

Mr. Sheppard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I made a mistake. It should be the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty).

The Deputy Chairman: I am glad you corrected it. We deduced that at the beginning. Your point is well made.

Mr. Pope: Where was I?

The Deputy Chairman: Iroquois Falls.

Mr. Pope: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I said, I have received many letters from individual families in that community with respect to this legislation. By far, there has been more comment and letters on this issue than on any other in the nine and a half years I have been honoured to be the member for Cochrane South.

That says something. It says that this is an issue on which the people do not feel the government is proceeding correctly. They feel the government is forcing this issue and bringing it in as a priority when the people are not ready to accept it.

I can understand the delegation versus representative theories of government as well as anyone else. I can understand the leadership role that members have to play from time to time on issues of great public import. However, this one is not even close. The people of my constituency are vigorously opposed to Bill 7 in its current form. There is not even going to be an opportunity to have public hearings and discuss this matter. The people are opposed to it and the government is trying to pass it in any event.

It is not as if it were 52 per cent or 48 per cent in support on one side or the other of the issue. There is massive rejection of this Liberal government's priority. I am not here to play to the galleries. I am not here to get news coverage. I am here to represent the views of my constituents and, on this issue, there is no contest. On this issue, the people of Cochrane South are opposed to this legislation. In spite of that --

Interjection.

Mr. Pope: Well, it may be why the member needs it. I know she thinks that the people of this province have no right to have their say on these issues and will proceed irrespective of their points of view. The people have a right to have their points of view represented in this Legislature and I intend to do it. I would like to read three kinds of letters that I have received.

17:10

"M. Alan Pope, député à la Législature ontarienne, Timmins, Ontario.

"Monsieur Pope,

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

"Bien que je reconnaisse plusieurs aspects positifs contenus dans ce projet de loi, il y a dans la section 18 les numéros 1 jusqu'à 5, qui me paraissent inacceptables.

"Ce projet de loi, consistant à modifier le Code des droits de l'homme, mentionne les orientations sexuelles de la personne. L'Église catholique, dans sa tradition judéo-chrétienne, fait nettement une distinction entre les orientations sexuelles d'un être humain et son comportement sexuel.

"Ce projet de loi, dans sa formation actuelle, demeure très ambigu en se limitant à l'expression `orientation sexuelle'. Je vous rappelle que le comportement homosexuel est incompatible avec la morale chrétienne. Toute loi facilitant la pratique de l'homosexualité serait nuisible à la société, à toute institution qui s'y oppose et à l'éducation.

"En plus, si ce projet de loi, dans sa formation actuelle, devenait légal, le couple homosexuel obtiendrait les mêmes garanties légales que le couple et la famille. D'ailleurs, le service civil de Toronto parle déjà en ce sens.

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

"Veuillez croire à mes sentiments les plus sincères."

C'est signé par une personne de Cochrane Sud.

Voici une autre lettre:

"Monsieur Pope,

"Dans le projet de loi Bill 7, l'expression `orientation sexuelle' prête à plusieurs interprétations.

"Est-ce que ce serait un droit de l'homme de pratiquer l'homosexualité et que ce prétendu droit serait protégé par l'État? Notre culture, nos religions et nos traditions sont allergiques à ce principe. Et ne trouvez-vous pas que cela ouvrirait la porte à des plus graves problèmes dans notre société?

"Vous êtes reconnu pour avoir une grande influence dans les décisions gouvernementales et pour être le porte-parole de vos électeurs. Je vous prie donc d'user de votre pouvoir pour éclairer ce texte et ne pas laisser passer une loi qui serait contraire à la morale catholique.

"En attendant de lire ou d'entendre votre action au parlement ontarien, je vous prie de croire à mes sentiments les plus distingués."

Here is another series of documents, and I will read just one of the entire pile:

"Monsieur le Député, la Législature ontarienne étudie présentement le projet de loi 7. Ce projet omnibus présente des points très positifs et louables.

"Cependant, les numéros 1 à 5 de la section 18 m'inquiètent beaucoup. Ce projet de loi, consistant à modifier le Code des droits de l'homme, mentionne les orientations sexuelles de la personne. L'Église catholique, dans sa tradition judéo-chrétienne, fait nettement une distinction entre les orientations sexuelles d'un être humain et son comportement sexuel.

"En tant que citoyen de cette province, je m'oppose à une telle législation. L'Église catholique, comme tous les groupes de culture judéo-chrétienne, ne peut tolérer une telle situation. Tout être humain a droit à la protection selon le Code des droits de l'homme, y compris les homosexuels. Cependant, la libéralisation des activités homosexuelles serait une grave erreur pour notre société.

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

These letters come from people in my constituency. They indicate very clearly their point of view. In the light of public opinion, not only in my riding but also across the province, I find it astonishing that the Premier and the Attorney General are making this a Liberal government priority.

When we have had 5,000 layoffs in northern Ontario and 15,000 jobs lost throughout the province this year, when our resource sector is in a virtual shambles and needs government attention, I find it astonishing that we are dealing with this bill, which is opposed by the vast majority of the people of my constituency and, I suspect, of Ontario.

I do not understand the priorities of this government. I do not understand why we are taking time to debate this contentious piece of legislation at this critical juncture for so many human beings and workers in resource communities across northern and eastern Ontario. We are taking time that is needed to help those people.

I would also like to comment on the process. Quite frankly, the process is another thing that I find astonishing. I understood the comments of the House leader and Treasurer yesterday. He thought it was a normal democratic process. With the greatest respect, I disagree.

This amendment was introduced near the end of the committee hearings on this matter. No briefs were presented by the public. It was debated not by the public but by the members of the committee. Members of the committee debated it, but the public did not have a chance to react to it. The committee did not hear any submissions. It moved immediately to a vote.

This government, which is so open, which ushered in a new era of open government, will not allow the people of this province to express their opinions, other than through this debate in the Legislature that we are having right now.

As the previous speaker said, with respect to Bill 30 and many other, less significant aspects of government policy in this province, people had the opportunity to be heard, not only in committee of the Legislature but also in their home towns; we even heard about line-fence legislation. However, we will not hear from the public on this bill.

I think the member, who will go back to his constituency this weekend and, I hope, listen to the people, will be on his feet early next week putting forward his position in this assembly on behalf of his constituents. Perhaps during the weekend he can explain to his constituents why they are not going to be given the opportunity to comment on this bill; why the groups that are so concerned about it are not going to be allowed to come before a legislative committee; why this Legislature and a committee of this Legislature will not go out to listen to their points of view on this matter.

I do not think this is a democratic process at all.

Mr. Shymko: It is not of the people, for the people and by the people.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Would members please refrain from making remarks?

Mr. Pope: This is not a democratic process. This government has made it a priority to get this legislation through. The Premier has called the members of his caucus to tell them to vote for this legislation. It is a priority of the Premier, the Attorney General and the Liberal Party of Ontario, and they are going to proceed, irrespective of the wishes of the members of the public, without giving people a chance to have their say.

That is the reality of the process that the Treasurer of this province and House leader of the Liberal Party was so proud of yesterday. That is the new definition of open government by the Liberal Party of Ontario.

We hear there is going to be a whip vote on behalf of the Liberal Party. Some members of the Liberal Party, many of whom have spoken on this bill and many others who will be speaking on this bill, know in their hearts that they should have adopted the position that the Liberal Party of Ontario adopted in 1981. That was a free vote on the matter of the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Human Rights Code.

That decision by the Liberal Party of Ontario in 1981 was proudly proclaimed in the legislative committee and in the Legislature by the representatives of that party. I refer members to Hansard in the fall of 1981 for those comments.

That is not happening now. Because this amendment is a personal priority of the Premier, this will be a whip vote, and the chance of dissent by individual members of the Liberal Party is very slim. It takes a great deal of courage for individual members to stand up and talk against a bill, and it will take even more courage to be here when the vote occurs and to vote against it.

17:20

That is what we are calling on the members of the Liberal Party to do: to ignore the priorities of the Premier. Other members in the Liberal caucus have talked about their personal beliefs in this matter. They have indicated their feelings. Now it is time for all members of the Liberal Party of Ontario to do so and, more important, to be here for the vote to make sure they stand up for their beliefs.

Our party has enough respect for its membership on this issue and on many other issues to allow the members the freedom to express their opinions and to allow them a free vote.

I want to address myself to the comments of the Attorney General on Tuesday, which could be described at best as sophistry and at worst as quasi-intellectual bafflegab. Before I do that, I will deal with the comments of the Minister of Agriculture and Food on the CBC last night. He said that not only was he going to support this bill but also that he did not care what his constituents thought. If they disagreed with him, they were wrong. Not only that, but he also could not understand how anyone could oppose this legislation; it was beyond his comprehension.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food cannot understand how anyone could oppose this legislation. I want to take members back to a day of infamy in the history of this Legislature, on Tuesday, June 2, 1981:

"Mr. Riddell: First of all, I want to say, Mr. Ruby, I am one who is prepared to listen to all the debate and make a decision. But what response would you give to a parent who comes up to you and says: `Where have my rights gone to? Do I no longer have a say as to who is going to teach my children? Do I no longer have a say as to who is going to lead the cub pack or the scout pack?'

"What about the businessman -- this is something I am confronted with all the time -- who comes up to me and says: `Where have my rights gone to? Do I no longer have the right to say as to whom I may hire that is going to do the best job for me?' You come on pretty strong in the direction you are going, but I doubt that you have ever been in the political arena and I doubt that you have ever had to answer questions from these people who know what this bill is all about. They come up to our office and say: `Do I no longer have any rights as a parent? Do I no longer have any rights as a businessman?' I would like to know what your response would be to that kind of thing."

That is the end of the quote from June 2, 1981, from the present Minister of Agriculture and Food, the same minister who today cannot understand how anyone can oppose the legislation.

Interjections.

Mr. Pope: There is more. Members will enjoy it.

Then there is June 24, 1981:

"Mr. Riddell: It must be a learned response, in which case such a learning process could take place in a classroom or in a Boy Scout camp. You can understand the concerns that some people have. I am wondering if my rights, say, are being taken away if we include sexual orientation in this bill. I am wondering if my rights would be taken away if I had no say who is going to lead my boy in a scout pack or who is going to teach my children in the classroom or that children's rights are being taken away. If it is a learning process, then the young people can quite conceivably be influenced, and I think you have to agree that it is the concern that some people have.

"I have no problem with sexual orientation when it comes to employment for adults or when it comes to getting a place to live and things like that. I guess my concern stems from the fact that I know these young people can be influenced. I happened to go through a public school system where we had a homosexual teacher in grade 7. I would just hate to indicate to the members in this room what went on and the kind of influence."

Two lines later, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who cannot understand now how anyone could oppose this legislation, said in 1981:

"Mr. Riddell: Oh, it was just terrible. I guess this is why I am a little gun-shy about sexual orientation. Oh, I am sure there are. It is not the only example I could quote. Just recently in my own riding, we had a priest who had to leave the priesthood because of his association with boys. It was quite well covered up. I give them credit for it. I just hate to see this thing exposed too much. I guess it is another reason why I am a little gun-shy about including sexual orientation in this bill."

That was the current Minister of Agriculture and Food, the one who was on the CBC last night saying he did not understand how anyone could ever be opposed to this legislation. He continued:

"As far as apartments are concerned, I share an apartment with one of my colleagues. When we decided to move into an apartment, we went to the ManuLife. We told the person who took our completed application forms that we were moving in and there was never a question asked. I guess there is a counter-argument to yours.

"We are homo sapiens, which I guess is the highest order of the animal kingdom. As a farmer, I happen to know a little bit about animals. I do not know why you are cutting us off. Damn it all, we are just responding to some of the statements that were made. If you want to stifle debate, fine. I will quit now."

He went on to say:

"That is right. The point that I was trying to make and what I was just saying is this: I think I said one is natural and one is not natural. As I say, being with livestock so much of the time, I think I know what `natural' means."

This is the current Minister of Agriculture and Food, who does not understand how anyone could ever oppose the bill today but who led the opposition of his party in this committee to the very same clause in 1981. That is not hypocrisy; that is just a difference of opinion between 1981 and 1986.

On September 22, 1981, Peter Maloney was in the legislative committee that day. The member for Huron-Middlesex, now the Minister of Agriculture and Food, said:

"As you well know, my concern has been about giving rights to homosexuals in their work when they are working with young people. I still maintain that you cannot be someone and you cannot live a life without somehow setting an example of the type of life that you live or exposing the kind of person that you are. I brought out a couple of examples the other day, being a former teacher. I know one who has very strong religious convictions and he could just not refrain from trying to instil that type of faith in his students until the principal stepped in and gave him a warning, `You cannot do this or you are going to be out.'

"I have nothing against giving rights to the gay community for, say, employment, where they are working with mature people who have reached that stage where they can make their own decisions. A lot of people share the anxiety I have. When it comes to the homosexuals in the classroom, you are quite right when you said that I am speaking on behalf of very concerned constituents."

It goes on and on. Without quoting, I refer the members to the words of the member for Huron-Middlesex on November 30, 1981, when this matter was debated in the Legislature. He reiterated again the positions he stood for in those days, positions that he now says he cannot understand.

Some hon. members: Read them.

Mr. Pope: Do members want me to read them? All right, I will read them.

The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) mentioned that he recalls the minister's performance in that committee. He, too, could not understand the minister's comments last night on the CBC.

This is from page 4055 in Hansard, November 30, 1981:

"I personally do not believe that sexual orientation should be a basis of discrimination, provided fundamental human rights are not violated, and I think this is what many of the other people are saying. One of my concerns is the banning of discrimination based on sexual orientation in the hiring of teachers."

There was an interjection by an honourable member, "Huh." The member for Huron-Middlesex replied:

"You can say "Huh" all you like. I am surprised that someone who has taught school would not stand up and have something to say about this matter too."

He goes on and on for pages with respect to his personal position on this matter. I assume it is a personal position that has been subverted by the influence of the Premier and of the government House Leader, who are whipping a vote in this matter.

17:30

What you hear on the CBC with respect to some cabinet ministers is not on all fours with what they supported as private members in this Legislature only five years ago.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: That is all he said.

Mr. Pope: If the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) wants to defend that performance, he can be my guest. if he wants to defend 1981 versus 1985, he can be my guest. It is up to Liberal members to stand up and explain their position.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: We want to know where you stand.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Will you please allow the member for Cochrane South to deliver his debate?

Mr. Pope: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your efforts on my behalf. Where was I?

I want to leave that point for now. If any member of the Liberal Party would like to stand up and defend the position the Minister of Agriculture and Food took in 1981 versus the one he is taking in 1986, I think he would appreciate the support. There is no doubt he will be asked to explain why he has changed his tune between 1981 and 1986. I presume he will have a satisfactory explanation when he joins in the debate on this bill and when he joins the debate in the communities of his riding. I know, as the Minister of Agriculture and Food, he is a loyal member of the government of the Premier, the same Premier who has prevailed upon him to change his position and support this legislation. I know the minister will have an explanation for the House.

As I was saying, I was rising to defend the Irish from the comments of a Scott; namely, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). More important, I was rising as a Scot to defend the Scots from the comments of the Treasurer and House Leader of the Liberal Party.

I understood the point they were trying to make, that discrimination against a person because of his religion, the country he was born in, his colour or his language is somehow related to the amendment to this part of Bill 7, which amends the Human Rights Code.

With the greatest respect, those who drafted the Charter of Rights disagreed with my friend the Attorney General. They made a conscious decision to disagree and to have a different set of principles from that the Attorney General has chosen in the Canadian Charter of Rights.

I read the comments of the Attorney General. I have only Instant Hansard, starting at L-1535-1, but I understood the point he was trying to make. In fairness to the Attorney General, I think he was trying to say that the entire bill was an attempt to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights. I know he did not mean to say this specific amendment to section 18 was called for by the Charter of Rights.

That might have been the impression from the statements made, but I know the Attorney General appreciates that the Charter of Rights, as was pointed out by the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), did not deal with sexual orientation deliberately. Sexual orientation was omitted by conscious decision of the people in charge at the time. The compliance aspects of the Attorney General's bill relates to the other provisions, quite properly so, and it was proper for him to bring that to our attention. I think the record should be corrected, unless there is something I am not aware of upon which the Attorney General will enlighten us later.

The Attorney General is here and he is listening raptly to the whole debate. I do not think there is a mandate in this government to introduce this legislation. It was not part of the platform of the Liberal Party of Ontario in the last election. I do not think there is a mandate for us as members of the Legislative Assembly to pass this legislation in the face of widespread public opposition. I know the Attorney General laid out in a very skilful way the arguments and the rationale on this matter in his address to the Legislature on November 25, but I have to take issue with some of the selective quotations and some of the selective arguments he made.

I know he quoted Bruce McLeod. I know he quoted from the social conference of Catholic bishops, but he neglected to quote, to give some balance to the presentation, the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, which issued a press release on this legislation some weeks ago. Irrespective of any report from any social conference of Catholic bishops, the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops chose to issue a press release concerning its position on these amendments to the media of this province and to every member of this Legislature.

Quite clearly -- there is no doubt about this -- the Catholic bishops of Ontario are opposed to this legislation, clearly opposed. If we are going to lay out the supporters of this legislation, I think we should also lay out the opponents.

It is true that the United Church of Canada wrote to the Premier about sexual orientation in the Ontario Human Rights Code on July 8, 1986, and because it takes a special position on behalf of the church, I think it should be read into the record, as well as the comments of Bruce McLeod.

"Comments in the public media in the last few weeks have suggested that religious organizations are opposed to including sexual orientation in the code. The United Church is not one of these organizations, nor do we believe that the religious conviction of some groups should be used to tolerate injustice against a whole group of people within our population.

"The elected representatives of the United Church most recently addressed this issue as follows: `that members of the Church individually and corporately are responsible for becoming more aware of discrimination against homosexual persons, taking action to ensure they enjoy their full human rights in society, working to end all forms of discrimination against them.'

"That was the 30th general council of the United Church of Canada on August 1984. The United Church spoke out on this issue in 1976 when the matter came before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. We addressed the matter again before the federal government's equality rights commission in 1985." It attached copies of its remarks for the Premier to look at.

It concludes by saying: "We are greatly encouraged at the promise of the Prime Minister that the Canadian Human Rights Act will be revised to include sexual orientation as prohibited ground for discrimination, and we urge your government to ensure that the province of Ontario take similar action.

"Signed, Bonnie M. Green, staff officer, human rights and international affairs."

That is the position offered on behalf of the United Church of Canada.

However, then we have -- and it should also be read into the record -- the position of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. They wrote to every member of this Legislative Assembly as follows:

"The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, at its general conference held in Edmonton, from August 21 to 26, 1986, unanimously adopted a resolution to notify the government of Ontario that we oppose the amendments to Bill 7 which would add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Ontario Human Rights Code.

"It is our understanding that Bill 7, with the offensive amendment included, is to be considered by the committee of the whole in this session of the Legislative Assembly.

"It is our opinion that the process by which the amendment was included in Bill 7 did not give ample opportunity for the public to make its views known on this matter, which the federal government has admitted addresses some of the most difficult moral and religious concerns of Canadians.

"This controversial amendment, introduced by Evelyn Gigantes, MPP, in the standing committee on administration of justice, was never made known to the public and was only added to Bill 7 on May 6, 1986, the very day it was moved and carried.

"A summary of our concerns: We believe the proposed legislation would unreasonably restrict the rights of churches, religious and private schools, para-church groups, religious institutions and individuals in the following ways:

"1. The term `sexual orientation' is undefined and open-ended. Its inclusion would endorse and extend legal support to homosexual behaviour and it would open the door to other sexual behaviour such as preference for children and animals.

17:40

"2. Agencies such as those that provide services and companionship to children would lose their right to set their own standards of conduct.

"3. Schools, day care centres or group homes could be forced to employ those whose sexual preference is not in keeping with the standards of their institutions.

"4. Religious groups would be forced to hire staff members whose lifestyle is contrary to the beliefs and practices of those communities.

"5. The unique status of marriage and the family as a fundamental unit in our society could be removed and there would be calls for further legislation to legalize homosexual and lesbian marriages and the adoption of children.

"6. Governments and other agencies along with insurance companies would be obliged to extend all spousal insurance and other benefits to homosexual partners. This could cause economic havoc.

"7. Private home owners could lose all freedom in deciding whether or not to rent to homosexuals or lesbians.

"In light of these concerns, we consider the amendment to be an inappropriate interference with our moral choices and community standards."

I will not read the entire letter, but it goes on for two more pages indicating the position of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada with respect to this matter. It was signed by the Rev. Hudson T. Hillsden, co-ordinator, social concerns and public relations, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada.

There were other notes, including the press release I previously indicated from the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops. They wrote a letter to the Premier on June 9, 1986 as follows:

"It has come to my attention that the justice committee of the Legislature is recommending that sexual orientation be included in the Ontario Human Rights Code.

"The Catholic Church can in no way agree to such an inclusion that would recognize in law homosexual activity as perfectly normal and acceptable. No matter how good its intention, the justice committee is supporting a change in law that is definitely at odds with the constant Judaeo-Christian moral teaching and runs counter to the common good.

"A few years ago this same issue was discussed by a legislative committee. At that time, the executive committee of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops submitted a short statement that clearly defines the church's position on homosexuality as a moral and social issue. I shall include it here, or I would ask you to read it, Mr. Premier, so that you may understand our vigorous opposition as a church to the inclusion of the term `sexual orientation' in the proposed omnibus bill. We reiterate that the moral issue is also linked with the common good and the rights of the majority.

"As you know, this same issue of homosexual rights and protections is being studied by the federal government. The bishops of Canada, through their president, Bishop Bernard Hubert of St. Jean, Quebec, have expressed in the enclosed letter both the gravity of the issue and the need to defer any pertinent legislation to the fore.

"I cannot be more emphatic, Mr. Premier, in asking you to forestall at this time such a proposal by the justice committee. I am raising the issue on behalf of all the bishops of Ontario. We trust that you will be able to respond to our pressing concerns.

"Yours sincerely, John A. O'Mara, Bishop of Thunder Bay, president, Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops."

That should be read into the record as well as the Attorney-General's reference to the social conference of Catholic bishops.

There are many other letters we have all received as members of this assembly. Yesterday the House leader for the Ontario Liberal Party unfortunately referred to the voices of intolerance. I do not think those who oppose the bill out of legitimate concerns are necessarily the voices of intolerance. I do not think the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops is a voice of intolerance.

Mr. McClellan: Is that how you adjudicate human rights, by the weight of your mail?

Mr. Pope: I do not think the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada are a voice of intolerance in our society. I do not think Bruce McLeod is a voice of intolerance in this province. I do not think the Big Brothers of Canada is the voice of intolerance. These are very important agencies in our province. They perform a vital function in our province.

Mr. McClellan: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Pope: I know the member for Bellwoods thinks these people are all wrong and should not be heard and that they do not have a right to have their say in this matter. With the greatest of respect, I disagree. It will be interesting to see whether the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) will get up and address the comments

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), who has chosen to take the balance of the afternoon to speak in the debate -- as is his right, of course -- should be aware, first, that members of this party were under the impression that the Conservative Party had agreed to a foreshortened debate in order to have a vote this afternoon. That turned out not to be --

Mr. Gregory: No.

Mr. McClellan: That information came from the office of the leader of the Conservative Party, but it turned out to be false. I can assure the member that there will be speakers from the New Democratic Party on Monday.

However, my point of order is this: The member has put inaccurate words in my mouth, and I do not appreciate that. What I said was that human rights should not be judged by the weight of one's mail, sir.

Mr. Foulds: Democracy happens to involve the protection of minorities, not just the rule of the majority.

Mr. Harris: Very briefly on the point, I do not want to debate the merits of the debate here. All members, I am sure, like members of our party, will be given an opportunity to speak and to state their views.

The member indicated on the point that our party had served notice that we would be shortening our debate and that we would be voting today. Our party, to the best of my knowledge, has not indicated that this would be the case. As the House leader for the party, through whom those decisions are relayed, I could get into the conversation our leader had, if members wished. It has not been represented fairly by the NDP House leader as stated. We are eager to carry on with all the legislative items, including this one, and that is the position of our party.

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The comments made by my House leader are entirely correct, to my personal knowledge. I want to make it very clear that we refrained from participating actively in the debate this afternoon for one reason and one reason alone, and that is that we were led to believe that if we were to do so, we would have a vote this evening. I was to wind up for the party.

It is quite clear that this is not what has happened, and it is out of that sense of frustration that my House leader spoke. What he has said is, to my knowledge as a member of this party and as leader of our party, utterly and entirely true.

The Deputy Chairman: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Harris: Certainly.

The Deputy Chairman: It was not a point of order before. Please continue.

Mr. Harris: It is on the same point. The member for York South (Mr. Rae) has attributed comments to the leader of my party that are not correct. Everybody has asked when the vote would take place. All parties are interested in that and, of course, the media are very interested in that. We are now at Thursday, when a lot of people want to go home if there is not going to be a vote.

Mr. Rae: You are running very close to the line.

Mr. Harris: You have had your opportunity, and I am going to correct the record.

Many people have been very interested in when this vote would take place. My leader, I believe, has indicated, as I have indicated, that there are a number of speakers. I indicated that I thought one of the possibilities was that had there not been as many speakers as all parties had, it might have been possible to vote today. I stand behind that; my leader stands behind that. It might very well have been possible to vote today. It appears that it is not possible, but that was what had been stated by my leader and by me to all members of the Legislature, to the other House leaders and to the media.

17:50

Mr. Pope: We received other mail, as members, from a variety of groups, and I am not going to read into the record their submissions to us.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Come on, read it all.

Mr. Pope: All right, I will. It is rather interesting; the New Democrats have a new concept of democracy. If you disagree with them, you should not have the right to be heard. That is what they are saying.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Pope: The Coalition for Family Values addressed correspondence to all members of the assembly. They indicated their concerns with respect to the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Ontario Human Rights Code. I think Rev. Hudson T. Hillsden, chairman, personally signed this document.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Alan is back in the race.

Mr. McClellan: The leadership race.

Mr. Pope: I have to say to the member for Scarborough West that we have something in common.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will not be around; I have enough sense to get out.

The Deputy Chairman: I ask the member for Cochrane South to speak through the chair.

Mr. Pope: On June 30, 1986, this document was sent to every member of the Legislature. The coalition requested: "Take steps to hold back action on the sexual orientation amendment in Bill 7...that all members seriously consider all aspects and implications of this issue...it simply cannot be passed into law without adequate explanation and safeguards."

Along with a news release from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, this was received by all members of the assembly in early July. Some members of the assembly do not want to pay any attention to those points of view, but I think it is our obligation as members to do so.

We also had many items of correspondence that others have referred to from many individuals in our society who have expressed their concern in great volume over this matter. As I said at the outset, I have received more mail on this matter than on any other matter in the nine and a half years I have been the member for Cochrane South.

Individuals from all parts of Ontario, and from outside Ontario, have written to all the members of the Legislature. Letters were received from as far away as Surrey, British Columbia, containing some comments that I will not read into the record with respect to this piece of legislation and attitudes towards it.

Mr. Breaugh: I think you should read those into the record.

Mr. Pope: The member for Oshawa will have the opportunity to do that. He is perfectly at liberty to do so.

These issues clearly raise the concerns of a variety of groups in our society. These are groups that have a great influence on our daily lives. These are institutions we all look up to; therefore, these are institutions whose opinion we have to regard when making these kinds of decisions. I know others do not want to regard those opinions, but I think we should do so in making our decision on this matter.

There has also been some correspondence, which was referred to earlier, that the member for Ottawa Centre was good enough to forward to us this afternoon from the Church of the Holy Trinity and the Parkdale Community Legal Services, which indicates they support the amendments to the Human Rights Code and urge that they be adopted.

The point I am trying to make is that many organizations, groups and individuals have perceived this to be an important enough issue to take the time to write to us. I think the process in which we are now engaged is an unfortunate one. There should be public consultation and hearings on this matter so that we can hear the opinions of the people of the province. That process would be of some assistance to the members of this assembly when they decide how to vote on this very important matter.

I want to deal with a couple of points. First, I could not understand the Attorney General's presumption that if someone is convicted of a criminal offence that somehow relates to how we deal with employment and housing under the Human Rights Code. I do not know whether the Attorney General is saying we are allowed to discriminate against someone with a criminal conviction irrespective of what that is and that is all right under the code, but if so, I know the John Howard Society would be interested to hear that point of view.

I do not appreciate the distinction he tried to draw in not allowing discrimination with respect to sexual orientation but allowing discrimination with respect to housing and employment on the basis of a conviction of some criminal offence. I hope the Attorney General can address that conundrum when he replies to the points we have raised in this debate.

The Attorney General tried to indicate that this legislation would have no impact on the morals of our society. I appreciate his point of view on this matter with the greatest of respect, but the vast majority of people do not agree with his point of view on this matter.

They look to this Legislature and to the laws of this province to set some standards, some values for our society. They anticipate we will consider those values and the bases of our society when we make decisions with respect to legislation that comes before us and that we somehow have a higher duty to reflect those values and those concerns when we debate matters that come before us, and that all matters, all pieces of law, all government decisions, in some way or another can have an impact or an influence on the values of our society. Therefore, we should be cognizant of that concern when we are making decisions on matters such as this piece of legislation.

I know the Attorney General's point on defining the context of sexual preference or sexual orientation. I appreciate the distinction he makes between criminal behaviour and noncriminal behaviour with respect to the issue of sexual orientation. I do not understand its application to the nondiscrimination provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code, particularly with respect to housing and employment and, quite frankly, I do not think that relationship can be drawn.

I do not think one can make a decision on whether one will allow discrimination or nondiscrimination on employment and housing on the basis of conviction for a sexual offence, whatever that may be. I do not know what the Attorney General meant when he engaged in those two pages of rational exercise that he went through two days ago.

I also do not agree with the Attorney General in his definition of the effects of these amendments in law, on other statutes and in governing conduct in our society. I disagree with him that there is no relationship whatsoever. There will be an impact and an effect, and for all of these reasons and many more which I would like to get into when we next sit, I think there is a problem with this legislation. I have additional points, but I have been urged by the government House leader to adjourn the debate.

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

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 1, An Act to amend the Succession Law Reform Act;

Bill 18, An Act to amend the Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1983;

Bill 48, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act;

Bill 58, An Act to amend the Time Act;

Bill 66, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act, 1982;

Bill 113, An Act to amend the Homemakers and Nurses Services Act;

Bill 119, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act;

Bill 120, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act;

Bill 121, An Act to amend the Land Titles Act;

Bill 122, An Act to amend the Registry Act;

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Brantford;

Bill Pr30, An Act to revive Italo-Canadian Centennial Club;

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel; and

Bill Pr38, An Act to revive Traco Investments Limited.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, December 1, we will continue with the debate on section 18 of Bill 7 and continue that debate on successive days, if necessary, until it is completed.

On Tuesday, December 2, we will deal with legislation from the following list as time permits: second readings of Bill 14, An Act to amend the Oleomargarine Act; Bill 127, An Act to revise the Surveyors Act; Bill 90, An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act; Bill 139, An Act to implement the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law; Bill 112, An Act respecting the Enforcement of Statutes related to the Environment; Bill 158, An Act to continue The Canadian Insurance Exchange; Bill 108, An Act to amend the Insurance Act, and Bill 9, An Act to establish the Ministry of Skills Development. That will be followed by committee of the whole House on Bill 26, Retail Sales Tax Act.

On Wednesday, December 3, we will have the debate on third reading of Bill 51, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Rents charged for Rental Units in Residential Complexes, followed by, if time permits, legislation not completed on Tuesday.

On Thursday, December 4, in the morning, we will have private members' business standing in the name of the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swan), and in the afternoon, three committee debates concerning conflict of interest, order numbers 52, 54 and 55, with no vote to be held.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

27 novembre 1986