Hansard Transcript 1988-Apr-18 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of the members that on Thursday last the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) rose on a point of privilege concerning the announcement made by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) to his constituents of a proposed site having the potential to be developed for office, commercial, limited ancillary retail or government use.

The member for Oshawa then stated that the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) announced two days later that the site in question was now being made available for housing proposals and that announcements of this kind by the minister should be made in this chamber.

I must remind all honourable members, as my predecessors and I have stated on numerous occasions, such statements made outside the House may constitute a legitimate grievance and question of courtesy or respect for the House, and in my view they cannot form a question of privilege.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

POVERTY GAME

Mr. Allen: “My name is Barbara. I’m 31 years old. I’ve got four kids and I live in Toronto. I was 17 when my 14-year-old twins were born. By the time my fourth child was born, my husband up and left. I’ve never seen him since. He obviously couldn’t hack it. We couldn’t afford day care. I couldn’t go out to work. Life was a constant round of unpaid bills. Looking back, I guess I really don’t blame him.”

I am really Richard, of course, and I am playing the MPPs’ Poverty Game, which took place last Friday, a game developed by women who lived on welfare and who tried to turn it into a game. It is set up like Monopoly, the only difference being that you never get ahead and you always lose more than you gain.

I could not believe the emotion that built up in me as I played the game, trying to meet the demands day in and day out, the requirements of my children for food and clothes. I never got past the third week, it seemed, without running out of money and having to resort to the food bank. The dilemmas and the tradeoffs were almost impossible. My worker seemed more like a policeman than a helper. As the four and a half hours wore on, I began more and more to identify with the person I was supposed to be playing.

At the end of the game, the organizers played a tape from the real Barbara telling what she went through and how it worked out in the end. I could not believe how much I had bonded with this person whom I did not know at all. I almost cried.

Everyone ought to play this game. The tragedy is that anyone should ever have to.

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Ministry of Labour. It is my understanding that the Workers’ Compensation Board plans to establish a modern, comprehensive rehabilitation centre, and a network of 50 to 100 community clinics and a number of regional medical centres within five years to help Ontario injured workers. On a number of occasions, I have pointed out to my colleagues here in this Legislature that the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia would be an ideal existing facility that could be used for the care and treatment of Alzheimer’s patients.

I would now like to point out that this same facility would be an ideal location for the WCB rehabilitation centre or a regional medical centre. The facility already exists, so an expensive new building does not need to be constructed.

The Huronia Regional Centre could be used to research work-related injuries and rehabilitation problems and for therapy designed to reintroduce injured workers to the workforce gradually.

I would urge the minister to give serious consideration to using the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia as a rehabilitation centre or regional centre to serve injured workers in Simcoe county and that part of Ontario.

CONSERVATION

Mr. Owen: There has been considerable animosity generated lately concerning access to hunting and fishing on crown lands, particularly in northern Ontario. Much of the hostility has been motivated by financial considerations and suspicion of one group’s having more influence than another.

I believe conservation and fair access for all Ontario citizens must be upheld. Ontario’s parks and other public lands should be a source of recreation and enjoyment for all with restrictions when dictated by concern for conservation. I am assured the Ministry of Natural Resources will take all opinions into consideration when formulating its policy on this issue. I am confident the matter will be resolved in the interest of our best possible future.

Finally, I would like to extend my congratulations to all those conservationists in my riding of Simcoe Centre who expressed their concern for vacancies that had occurred among the ranks of conservation officers in Simcoe county. I am pleased the Ministry of Natural Resources is now filling those positions. We all benefit from the protection of our natural heritage and it is a reassurance that this government is guaranteeing the protection of natural heritage for all people in Ontario.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is Education Week in Ontario and a day on which we might expect the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to be here making some major announcements announcing perhaps that he was going to meet the Liberal promise of moving the government towards 60 per cent of the funding of education instead of reducing that percentage as it has been doing.

Perhaps he would have been here to tell us there will be fewer kids next year in portables, instead of more and more as thousands of kids in this province are now being taught in portables around the province. Perhaps he would have been here to tell us that the special-education legislation, Bill 82, was going to be revamped, that he was announcing that today, and that we could all get to work on finally making sure that piece of legislation did what we wanted it to do when we brought it in five years ago.

Perhaps he would be telling us that the terrible deterioration in English-as-a-second-language teaching that has been taking place in this province is going to be reversed, or he would be announcing the results of the government’s heritage-language survey, which the government has had the results of now for over three months and is somehow not divulging to this House or to the province.

Perhaps the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod), who is here, will tell us why she is now tempering the government’s message about accessibility to universities, where now we are not guaranteeing as a province that any child who wants to go to university will be able to get there. Instead, we are allowing the possibility where, to get into certain first-year programs in Ontario, students will need over 80 per cent to qualify. In fact, they will not be eligible for university, as I was able to go in the 1960s.

Perhaps we will be hearing from the government some major statements on these matters today.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Jackson: At this moment, grade 13 students across Ontario are preparing to write their final exams for May and June, and many of them are eagerly awaiting word from the universities to which they have applied in this province. One can only guess at their frustration and disappointment -- shared, I might add, by members of this party -- when they read in the Sunday Star that this Liberal government is breaking a commitment made two decades ago by the former Conservative government to ensure that every qualified student will find a place in our university system.

The article is headed “University No Longer Promised for All.” It reads: “For 25 years Ontario high school students have lived with the promise that all qualified students would find a place in an Ontario university.

“Colleges and Universities minister Lyn McLeod says the promise has changed.” The article goes on to say, “Students who can’t get into jam-packed universities should go to a community college instead.”

On June 15, 1987, the Liberal Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised, “There has been a substantial guarantee by this government that every qualified student will have a place in a university this fall.”

Where is that commitment? How is this Liberal government going to respond to the thousands of students in grades 12 and 13 who have been betrayed by the Premier and the minister? We have always believed that there should be a place in university for every qualified student. So did the Liberals, it seems, until after the last provincial election.

1340

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Tatham: Who Killed Cock Robin?

Remember -- all the birds of the air

Start a-sighin’ and a-sobbin’

When they heard of the death

Of poor Cock Robin.

Where should we bury the garbage?

Oh, put it in the gravel pit,

That is it

Good fit$

And then 20 years later

Or maybe 10,

Leachate bloom meets aquifer

And turns drinking water tan.

Oh, I think I’ll build my house right here

Whoops -- I can’t -- methane gas, my dear,

So have we got an answer

To those questions every day?

Who will take our garbage?

Who is going to pay?

Well, Oxford campus, Fanshawe,

In Woodstock town it seems

Has started protective workshops

To stanch the garbage screams.

Brighton, Norwich, Brantford,

Kincardine, Paris, Kent

Are some who’ve sent their people

To these discussions, friend.

How much, you ask, does this help cost?

$100 and that’s no loss

Because you’ll get your fill of words

Of talk and food and paper.

I know you’ll send your friends along

For a session coming later.

Who killed Cock Robin?

Was it him? Was it her?

Who killed Cock Robin?

Perhaps we should look into the mirror.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) is in the House today, I would like to implore him to involve himself in the labour dispute around Lily Cups in Scarborough -- a company, Fort Howard, which has brought Georgia-style labour relations negotiations to this province, a harbinger of things to come if free trade goes through, and which has come to an awful condition this weekend.

They are now saying that they are going to systematically withdraw even more things from the bargaining table than were on it before. This company has asked some of the workers to give up six weeks of vacation after 30-some years of service and go back to two weeks of vacation. They unilaterally shortened the work week, they unilaterally took away floating holidays and they are determined to break this union and to set a standard for labour relations in this province that could only be seen to be a disaster.

I would ask the minister to call them into his office -- both sides if he chooses to -- to discuss this with them in the most serious of fashions, because otherwise this is going to be setting an example for industries in this province which I suggest will be very detrimental to workers in this province.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DEATH

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am very pleased to table two reports that will be of great interest to the members of the House. The reports are the Ontario Law Reform Commission Report on Compensation for Personal Injuries and Death and the report of Mr. Justice Osborne’s Inquiry into Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation in Ontario.

As members of this House know, Ontario has undergone a difficult time with respect to the availability and affordability of insurance, as have most other jurisdictions in the world. Responding to those problems, in May 1986, the report of the Ontario Task Force on Insurance was tabled. In it, Dr. Slater urged, among other things, that the government give further consideration to some measure of tort reform and study the possibility of implementing a no-fault automobile accident compensation scheme.

As a result, on November 6, 1986, Mr. Justice Osborne of the Supreme Court of Ontario was authorized to inquire into and report on the tort system of compensation for injury by automobile accident and the consequences of the implementation of a no-fault automobile accident compensation scheme. In addition, he was asked to consider and report on a number of specific concerns with respect to motor vehicle accident compensation in the province.

Within the same time frame, the law reform commission had already commenced its examination of the fairness and consistency of the principles governing the assessment of compensation for personal injuries and death, which, of course, extends beyond automobile accidents.

I would like to take a moment to tell the members briefly about the final recommendations of both reports.

First, with respect to Mr. Justice Osborne’s report on motor vehicle accident compensation, he makes 147 recommendations for changes and improvements to the system by which we compensate the victims of motor vehicle accidents. He makes numerous recommendations with respect to the automobile insurance industry in Ontario, the coverage and delivery of compensation to victims, the standard automobile insurance policy itself, insurance principles, including the classification system and methods of underwriting, loss costs and premiums and, of course, the improvement of court proceedings themselves.

Members will be interested to know that Mr. Justice Osborne recommends that the government of Ontario not introduce public automobile insurance. Similarly, he does not recommend a pure no-fault automobile insurance scheme for Ontario. He does, however, recommend the retention and improvement of the tort system as it relates to motor vehicle accident claims.

Mr. Justice Osborne’s proposals obviously require careful consideration. However, I am favourably disposed to some of his recommendations. By way of example, Mr. Justice Osborne has made a variety of thoughtful suggestions for improving and streamlining the judicial process at and prior to the trial of motor vehicle accident cases.

In addition, one possible change on which there now seems to be some consensus is the abolition of the collateral source rule whereby some plaintiffs received double recovery for their losses.

I know that my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has identified some recommendations to which he too is prepared to give early favourable consideration. These changes will be reflected in amendments to the Insurance Act, which he plans to introduce, I am advised, in the near future.

At this point, on behalf of the government and the people of Ontario, I would like to extend my thanks to Mr. Justice Osborne, who undertook a formidable task in November 1986 when he agreed to examine this most complex problem. He conducted his inquiry with great skill in an atmosphere charged with anxiety for consumers and the industry alike. He is to be commended on the detail and depth of his inquiry and the breadth of the recommendations he has made.

Let me now turn to the second document, the Ontario Law Reform Commission Report on Compensation for Personal Injuries and Death. The commission, which of course extends beyond automobile accidents, makes several recommendations, including ones concerning loss of working capacity, damages for nonpecuniary loss, calculations with respect to the cost of future care and prejudgement interest.

The report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission provides a valuable analysis of many of the issues recommended for further study by Dr. Slater in his report in May 1986. The research of the commission and its recommendations provide a useful contribution to our understanding of compensation issues.

Again, I am favourably disposed to recommend to my colleagues a number of the recommendations. For example, the commission recommends a means that will require the co-operation of the federal government for elimination of the gross-up rule, a rule whereby awards are increased to take account of future taxes payable on interest income.

The commission, its chairman and staff are to be commended for a job well done. Now we begin the difficult task of digesting the contents of these two most detailed reports.

I know that members of this House, the public and various groups with a direct interest in reform will be anxious to see the recommendations of both reports and to provide the government with comments. Matters which we will be anxious to discuss include Mr. Justice Osborne’s recommendations with respect to no-fault auto insurance, threshold tort schemes and other compensation models discussed in his report. Both I and my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions look forward to comment on these reports.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wong: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the final report on the safety of Ontario Hydro’s nuclear power reactors. The report was submitted to me by the commissioner of the Ontario nuclear safety review, Professor Kenneth Hare.

The review was set up in response to a recommendation by the select committee on energy in July 1986.

The full report, as tabled, consists of five volumes and is a substantial document. What I have distributed to members today is the commissioner’s report to the minister, which consists of conclusions, recommendations and a summary of the full technical report. I have made arrangements for the full report to be sent to the Energy critics and the chairman of the select committee on energy. I would be pleased to meet members’ requests for the other documents.

I can also announce that Professor Hare will be present at a news conference in the Amethyst Room this afternoon at 3:30.

The report was reviewed by a panel appointed by the Royal Society of Canada. In the panel’s opinion, high scholarly standards have been achieved and all the relevant information has been assembled and reviewed with critical disinterest. I believe this report warrants careful study and action by all those who have responsibilities for the safety of nuclear power in this province.

1350

While it would be premature for me to make any comment on the report at this time, members should know that I have sent the report to the chairman of Ontario Hydro and have asked him to inform me of the actions Ontario Hydro will take.

I have also sent the report to the appropriate Ontario government ministries, and the Minister of Energy will co-ordinate a response to the report. I have requested that initial responses be available in four months.

Aspects of the work of the safety review relate to federal responsibilities. Accordingly, I have referred the report to the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for consideration and comment by the government of Canada.

This report represents a great deal of work, involving many people. I believe members would wish to join me in thanking all of those who contributed to the work of the Ontario Nuclear Safety Review. The Royal Society of Canada played an invaluable role in providing guidance and peer review, and I would specifically like to acknowledge their contribution. In particular, I would like to extend my personal thanks to Professor Hare and his staff for their hard work and dedication to the task they undertook.

EARL FENTON

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am pleased to be able to introduce today, in the Speaker’s gallery, Earl Fenton of Oakville, who has been chosen the minister’s 1987 Volunteer of the Year for community and social services.

Mr. Fenton was nominated from the Ontario Association of Volunteer Bureaux and Centres and by my ministry, which chose 43 individuals to receive our community service awards.

Fifteen years ago, Mr. Fenton helped establish Halton Helping Hands, an organization that provides home support services to frail elderly persons and people who are physically disabled.

He was also instrumental in the formation of the community Wheel-Trans service called Care-A-Van.

Three times a week, Mr. Fenton uses Care-A-Van to take him to Halton Helping Hands where he spends his afternoons on the telephone, talking to clients, ensuring that they are well and arranging appointments. When he is not on the telephone, Mr. Fenton is supervising the assignments of other volunteers and helping with administrative details in the office.

Because of his own physical disability, Mr. Fenton took early retirement from the Oakville post office and then immersed himself in a heavy schedule of volunteer activities. He sits on the Oakville handicapped advisory committee, the advisory committee for Care-A-Van, and he has been invited to be part of a group called Pegasus, which is Halton Region’s handicapped transit implementation committee.

Mr. Fenton and the recipients of the community service awards were nominated by their own peers. They see themselves not as winners, but rather representatives of thousands of volunteers who are directly or indirectly involved with programs supported by this ministry.

We could not provide the selection, nor would we have the quality of our community human services, without the superb contribution of all our volunteers.

To demonstrate our deep appreciation, we are again holding regional assemblies to recognize the contribution of these citizens. This evening in Sault Ste. Marie, my parliamentary assistant, the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin), will be honouring northern recipients. I will be convening awards banquets in Toronto, Kingston and London between now and May 11.

I am sure all members will join me in saying thank you to Mr. Fenton and the thousands of individuals who modestly and without fanfare have committed themselves to improving the quality of life in our province. Thank you, Earl, on behalf of the citizens of Ontario.

RESPONSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: I, of course, have to respond to the report given by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), and first complain about the paucity of information. We learned more from the press over the weekend than we did from the minister about what was in the report. The Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is not even in the House at this time. After the great fanfare when they announced this a year ago last fall, he is not even in the House reporting himself on this report.

Well, I want to say that with the little knowledge that we have, we are witnessing the ultimate in Liberal progressivity and their defence of the public against the corporations and corporate exploitation in this province.

We have had this exploitation for three years now on the insurance rates and the injustices that have gone with it. There was the Slater report. It was put on the shelf. A few months before the election they promised to do certain things which have amounted to nothing in the end. Now we have a report from Mr. Osborne which, in fact recommends the status quo of three years ago Some progress for the Liberals.

But this report also reveals something even worse about the way that the Liberals function. That report was to be released in November, in December and January and February and March. Today, I accuse the minister of deliberately stalling the release of this report which condemns his rate review board until he had that rate review bill passed in February. That is why we did not get this until now. He could not take two reports that, along with the Slater report, said that he had bombed in putting in the rate review board. I tell him, that bomb is going to blow up in his face.

Apart from that, the minister got what he wanted: a self-serving document that maintains the status quo. The insurance companies got what they want, and particularly the lawyers got what they want. The only ones getting shafted now are the motorists of this province, as has always been the case. Nobody in this party expected this report to recommend driver-owned insurance. He would not appoint someone who would cross him up like that. Otherwise he would have appointed somebody like the firm of Woods Gordon who did it before. And even if he did happen to, they would know the limits on what they could bring in to his people.

If the report does not recommend a driver-owned public system, it does not matter an awful lot what else is in the report because they will be tiny Band-Aids on the gaping wounds of a system that is bleeding the public to death. We did not need this report, and I want to say finally that this report deserves to go where most of the other government reports have gone, on the shelf. The ultimate test on what is good in auto insurance is where the public finds satisfaction and endorsation, and that is in the public plans in the west, and the Liberals, the Conservative and the Social Credit members have served the public out there by continuing those plans and saying they are good, but the Liberal government in this province goes on serving the corporate interest, the insurance companies of this province, and to hell with the motorists.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mrs. Grier: This seems to be the day for the release of weighty reports. I await with interest the five volumes of the Professor Hare report and can assure the minister that we will study them with interest and have a lot more to say about them than we can say in the time available today.

I would like to point out to the government that the appointment of the Hare commission was one of the recommendations of the select committee on energy. Many of the other recommendations of that committee remain ignored by this government and deal with the accountability of Ontario Hydro. If those recommendations to make Ontario Hydro more accountable had been put in place then we would have been much more reassured about the kind of review this report is going to undertake.

It is shocking that in looking at emergency plans, which was one of the things that Professor Hare was asked to look at, he has to point out that despite a discussion paper being released in 1986, little has been done to give effect to this plan for emergency planning for Ontario Hydro. The professional staff involved still numbers only two. A sense of urgency is lacking. If a severe accident occurs, the province is unready.

That is what this report is all about. It points out shocking dereliction by Ontario Hydro, and we intend to address that.

1400

AUTOMOBLE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: At the outset, we want to extend our compliments to Mr. Justice Osborne for what appears to be a thoughtful and well-reasoned report, a report that, somewhat surprisingly, echos virtually everything this party has been saying for many months. Common sense seems to be the main ingredient of the report, and common sense is not something that has been featured in this government’s words and actions in respect to auto insurance.

Justice Osborne is not supportive of comprehensive no-fault, and with that we heartily concur. Our party does not accept the concept that no individual should have to be liable for his own actions and that the cost of any risk should be distributed among all members of society. We in the Progressive Conservative Party believe in the ethic of responsibility, that individuals must face the consequences of their own actions.

Justice Osborne also finds the new rate-setting board inappropriate, and to this we say, amen. The board is an extremely cumbersome, costly and unnecessary intervention into the private sector, which can only result in the slow but sure reduction of competitive choice for consumers in the auto insurance field. No doubt that result will fit in nicely with the long-term planning of social engineers like the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), a former NDP fund-raiser, but for the majority --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Runciman: I know; the truth hurts.

For the majority of Ontarians, who we believe do not share those interventionist, government-knows-best aspirations, the establishment of this board bodes ill indeed.

We hold out little hope that the government will heed the wisdom of Justice Osborne’s report, but we feel obligated to urge it to step back and reconsider the path upon which it has embarked. It is not too late to reconsider. It is not too late to inject common sense and fairness into its approach. It is not too late to do what is right for the private sector and for the consumers of this province.

Again, we applaud Justice Osborne for telling it like it is.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Runciman: I will make a brief comment in respect to the tabling of the report by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). We welcome this report. We agree with the minister that it warrants careful study. We are somewhat relieved to see some of the major conclusions, obviously, especially the major conclusion regarding overall safety. I also concur with the recommendation regarding the human element being the major concern.

I would urge the minister and the various bodies that will be considering this report also to take into consideration a concern that has been raised in the United States recently and which was detected in a number of tests, and that is the alarmingly high usage of drugs by employees of nuclear generating facilities in the United States. I know this raises some questions in regard to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I urge the minister to take a careful look at this. This is something that we must indeed monitor in the Ontario situation.

Again, we look forward to working with the minister on this report.

EARL FENTON

Mrs. Marland: It is indeed a very real privilege and a pleasure to rise, on behalf of our caucus, to share in the recognition of Mr. Fenton. He certainly is an example to all of us. I think those of us who are able-bodied have to be very inspired and motivated by the example of Earl Fenton. When someone like Mr. Fenton becomes a force with so much success and so much good on behalf of other people, I think we are all indeed humbled by his example.

It is certainly a great week in Ontario as we recognize volunteerism. It has often been said that governments could never replace or pay for in any way the work of volunteers in Ontario. As we recognize their work and the rewards of their work without monetary compensation, we are again expressing our gratitude and our indebtedness to the people who volunteer their services for the betterment of their fellow persons in Ontario today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: Naturally, I had hoped to be able to ask some questions of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) today, but in his absence, turning again to the question of the government’s proposals with respect to Sunday working and Sunday opening, I have some questions for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, whose job will no doubt be made much more complicated by virtue of the impositions placed on him by his colleagues.

In the briefing which the press received on Thursday, the government states, “A bylaw may apply to any part or parts of the region; limit openings to specific times or certain number of hours; open or close on certain holidays; restrict opening or require closing to specific periods of the year; classify stores by size, number of people employed, character of business, geographic location, or any other criteria.” The law also gives the municipality the ability to substitute its own fine for the $50,000 fine which is provided for in the legislation.

I wonder if the minister can explain to the other simple souls in the Legislature, such as myself, who listened to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on Thursday with some amazement as he said this would make the law more enforceable, why having 800 municipalities and regions passing laws with respect to a total patchwork quilt will somehow make the law more enforceable in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I want to emphasize again that municipalities already have the option whether to be open or closed. We have met from time to time with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I met last Thursday, and we will be meeting again to discuss this subject further.

I want to say to the member that under the municipal option some five million people already live in communities that have opted for some form of Sunday shopping. Let me tell the member this: the municipalities are asking for the opportunity to run their communities, to run them in the way the people wish.

Mr. Brandt: They didn’t ask for this, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: No, what we are saying here is that the municipalities should have that option to tell us the type of community in which they would like to live, and that is what we are doing.

Mr. B. Rae: I am sure the minister would not want to imply for a moment that this legislation is something which the municipalities or the regions in this province have ever asked the government for; in fact, quite the contrary.

Again, the minister is saying something which is quite contradictory to what his colleagues were saying last week. What they were saying was that the current situation, and this has been the view the Attorney General himself expressed so many times, is such a mess, particularly in our large urban centres that, in the phrase being used by the Attorney General and by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), the law cannot be enforced.

You have people challenging the law. You have stores opening when they should not be opening. The law cannot be enforced. Those are the words used by the Attorney General and the Premier.

My question, again to the minister, is a very simple one. Can the minister explain to us how giving to the municipalities the power to pass a law which will classify stores by size, number of people employed, character of business, geographic location or any other criteria could conceivably make the law more enforceable? Would he not admit that common sense would tell him that if he thinks the law is a mess now, he ain’t seen nothing yet in Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The present law was passed in 1977 by the previous government and was reaffirmed in 1981 by that government. In fact, there are three members sitting across from me who were a part of that government. I say to them that the people have lived under this since 1977. Why did they not raise objections previously in the Legislature? Where were they when that was passed? Why did they not speak up on behalf of that legislation?

Mr. B. Rae: I must say that, having been all my life in opposition, I really do marvel when government blames us for the legislation it has passed over the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. It is the government’s baby and it is the government’s problem, and the one it has produced is going to be even worse than anything that was produced by previous governments. That is perfectly obvious.

1410

Mr. Speaker: Your supplementary?

Mr. B. Rae: The minister will no doubt be aware of the Nova Scotia experience, and if he is not I will remind him of it. In 1985, the Nova Scotia government did precisely what is being engineered by the genius of the Attorney General. A short year and a half later, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia had to change the law entirely and take it back into provincial jurisdiction precisely because it was such a mess, because there were so many challenges and because there was so much unfairness.

What he said was, “We believe that” by passing the change, bringing it back into the province, “we will have effectively cut off the possibility of developing a patchwork quilt of activity, municipal unit by municipal unit, and we will have a much more readable and understandable, and with respect I would suggest defensible, piece of legislation than perhaps was the case before.”

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister would not agree that perhaps it might be wise to look to the experience elsewhere where this has been tried and recognize that what he is doing is simply bound to fail.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It has been the experience in this province that municipalities speak on behalf of the people they represent, and I feel that the municipalities should speak from time to time on behalf of the people they represent. They are asking for the right to maintain this local option, this autonomy.

Mr. Harris: No, they are not.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Yes, they have.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: We are saying to them that since 1977 they have lived with this option. I am simply saying that in my experience the municipalities have never come to me and said that this is wrong. They are asking for that option. We are maintaining and carrying on with the option they now have. The honourable member knows that under this option the community of Point Edward, for instance, is open on Sundays, I understand. Where was his voice then and what did he say in 1981? That is it.

Mr. B. Rae: In view of the absence of the Premier, I would like to ask some questions to the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the minister has seen the factum, the legal document presented by his colleague the Attorney General to the court on behalf of the government of Ontario, indeed on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, the Provincial Offences Act appeal which is the most recent case on which the government of Ontario has expressed a view with respect to the current situation?

I wonder if he is aware of the fact that the government’s brief, submitted by the Attorney General or by the Ministry of the Attorney General on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, stated, under the heading “Vulnerability of the Retail Employee:”

“Employees in the retail sector were viewed as being in need of a statutorily mandated day of rest. Without such a regulation prohibiting Sunday openings, the vigorous competition for market share would force many retailers to open. Retail employees are generally nonunionized, have low job mobility and few if any mechanisms for the redress of grievances. As a group, retail workers are ‘not in an economic position to negotiate a satisfactory financial arrangement for Sunday work’ and are ‘subject to subtle economic pressure to work.’”

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister is aware of the fact that his own government, in the presentation of a document to the courts of this province, has stated categorically that the best protection that retail workers can get is to make sure that stores are closed so they are not subject to the kind of intimidation that goes on.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In answer to the first part of the question of the Leader of the Opposition: no, I have not read the factum. I think he has read some of it to me. I think the end of his question incorporated a great deal of paraphrasing, but if I recall the part that he did read --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the Leader of the Opposition obviously does not want to hear the answer.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If he wants to hear the answer he just has to listen for a moment. I think what he read at one point was a phrase which said, “In the absence of statutory protection.” The bill that I hope we can get to introducing later on this afternoon provides the very kind of statutory protection that the factum the Leader of the Opposition was referring to said the workers of the province needed. That is what we are doing.

Mr. B. Rae: Again, the government really has been speaking out of both sides of its mouth on this question. The Attorney General has presented a case to the courts of this province in which he has stated categorically everything which we on this side have been saying in this House, and the government is now changing the law, which completely undermines every case it has taken with respect to the current situation.

Is the minister aware of the fact, for example, that the arguments presented by the Attorney General’s department stated: “The evidence ‘overwhelmingly’ indicated that there was a need for a legislated pause day due to a reluctance on the part of many industries to regulate themselves in accordance with this objective. There is an ever-increasing trend in retail business and its ancillary services to open on ... Sundays. There is an accompanying erosion of the opportunity for retail workers to participate in leisure activities with family, friends and others. A uniform pause day was needed”?

That is what it stated. That is what was stated in this factum. This government’s own legal arguments have been based on that --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: With all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, there are some 160,000 retail workers who, under the current law, are subject to working on Sundays. The fact is that for the first time this parliament has the opportunity to consider a piece of legislation which will make Sunday work in the retail sector voluntary, rather than compulsory. There is a protection that retail workers have not had. Under this bill, even the 160,000 who are currently subject to Sunday work have the opportunity to do that. So I invite the Leader of the Opposition and his party and the Progressive Conservative Party to consider this legislation.

Let us move it forward, because I think he will admit it is a protection --

Mr. Harris: None.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: -- the workers of this province simply have never had before, I tell my friend the member for Nipissing.

Mr. B. Rae: The entire premise of this government’s and this province’s case in the Supreme Court of Canada and in every other argument about the Retail Business Holidays Act, has been that it is labour legislation, that it is legislation intended to protect employees, that is why it is constitutional and that is why it falls within provincial jurisdiction. That has been the entire premise of every government case.

If the minister thinks that handing over the rights of retail workers to municipalities is fair game, why would he stop at that? Why would he not have a regional minimum wage? Why would he not have different labour laws for the protection of women? Why would he not have different hours of work in different parts of Ontario? Why would he not say that is next? Why would he, as Minister of Labour, abandon retail workers --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That seems to be quite a number of questions.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The suggestion has been made that the current Retail Business Holidays Act is, in the view of the Leader of the Opposition, justifiable on the basis that it is labour legislation. Be that as it may, the fact is that for the first time in this province this parliament is going to be able to consider a bill which is direct labour protection.

He may want it to go further. I invite him to make those submissions during committee. He may say that it does not do everything, that we should be addressing the minimum wage as well and that there are other problems with retail workers; but for goodness sake, here we have an opportunity not only to address issues of the working world through amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act, but also to create a provincial framework and one provincial law for all the retail workers of this province, and it provides opportunity, fairly and reasonably, to deal with the issue of Sunday work.

1420

Now, the Leader of the Opposition does not want to pay attention but he quotes a Massachusetts law that he said is far more favourable than the one that we are proposing here in Ontario. I tell my friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Massachusetts bill deals with a tiny segment of retail workers; indeed, those who were working on the day that bill was passed.

He shakes his head. If he looks at the legislation, he will find out that is the way the courts have interpreted it.

What we are proposing --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Brandt: In view of the absence of the Premier, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Premier -- that is the Honourable Mr. Nixon, just in case he was wondering -- and the question relates to the issue of Sunday shopping.

As the Deputy Premier will know, a very substantial and large percentage of his colleagues, particularly those on the back benches, did not campaign in favour of Sunday shopping in the last election. In fact, many of them indicated that they were unalterably opposed to the issue of opening up Sundays in this province as a seventh day of commercial activity.

The Deputy Premier may also be aware that our party has indicated that we will proceed in the normal way with the legislation that he intends to bring forth in connection with this issue if, in fact, the Deputy Premier will use his considerable influence to discuss with the Premier the whole question of having a free vote in this House to allow all of these members to vote according to their conscience with respect to what we feel is a very important and fundamental issue to the people of Ontario. My question to the Deputy Premier is, will he use his influence to allow a free vote in this House?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report to you, sir, that my colleagues are very much and strongly in support of the legislation that is proposed to be put forward and we are looking forward to the leader of the third party making good on his commitment that the legislation will be properly before the House and available for the kind of debate that is going to be useful and, of course, democratically based.

But for my part, like for the honourable member himself, at least one community in my area has already taken advantage of its individual municipal right to declare itself a tourist area and the stores in that community -- it happens to be the township in which I live -- have been open now for a number of years. This has been a substantial convenience to the community and no one’s rights have been infringed in any way that is discernible and, as a matter of fact, I think the people in the community would be very upset indeed if the honourable member and his colleagues had their way and their right to self-determination was removed.

Mr. Brandt: What is interesting with respect to what the Deputy Premier has just indicated is that the Liberal back-benchers in his government are saying one thing here at Queen’s Park and still another to both the media and their constituents back in their own ridings. The government cannot have this issue both ways.

Let me quote, if I might, from a newsletter of one of the government members in which the member says, “Let me stress to you, I will continue to pressure my government in caucus meetings to pass legislation ensuring that stores remain closed on Sundays.” That is what that member says, but the Deputy Premier indicates they are free to do whatever they want. I am quoting from the newsletter of the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro) --

An hon. member: Not him again.

Mr. Brandt: The member for Guelph again. I quoted him last week. I quote him again.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: My question to the Deputy Premier is, in light of the fact that there are a number of back-benchers who wish to express some dissatisfaction with the legislation the minister is attempting to browbeat them into supporting, will he use his influence to allow a free, democratic, parliamentary vote in this House?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I know that the honourable member has returned to this issue on more than one occasion. He has singled out my colleague the member for Guelph, who is one of the finest and most capable members in the whole House.

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Very much.

In this regard, I refer to the fact that the leader of the third party has singled out the honourable member on more than one occasion to justify the fact. I would bring his attention to at least one of his own colleagues who has said back home in the good, old protected hills and valleys of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry that in fact he felt it was an appropriate approach.

I think the honourable member will know that the people who are elected to this House, whether in the Progressive Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party, naturally have their own views as to how it would affect their own communities.

I think he will be aware that if the Premier were here to answer the question, as I wish he were, he would point out that these differences are exactly what this bill intends to take into consideration. It is my view that once the leader of the third party and his sensitive colleagues look at the actual legislation that is presented to them, they will look forward not only to speaking in favour of it but also to voting in favour of it. Give us a chance to examine this legislation.

Mr. Brandt: On more than one occasion the members of the government, including the Deputy Premier and his Premier, have indicated that the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) has made certain comments with respect to Sunday shopping. Let me just say to him, as I have said to my colleague from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, that that member is free to vote as he chooses in this House.

Is the minister prepared to allow the member for Guelph to vote freely on this issue? That is the question I am raising with him.

Mr. Speaker: The Deputy Premier.

Mr. Brandt: That is not my question; that was a statement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In other words, you are saying you want to place another supplementary. Go ahead.

Mr. Brandt: I do want to place a supplementary. It has to do with more than just the member for Guelph. I might want to add to the Deputy Premier that I have nothing but the greatest of respect for the member for Guelph, who speaks out on his individual rights with respect to what his constituents want and has frequently indicated he is opposed to Sunday shopping.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question.

Mr. Brandt: I had my offices canvass some of the Liberal constituency offices asking this question, “Does your member support Sunday shopping?” The Deputy Premier would be pleased to know that of the calls we were able to make, 13 said yes; 28 said no, they do not support Sunday shopping; 11 were unsure; and for reasons that are best known to those constituency offices, fully 31 said they did not wish to comment.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Brandt: My question to the --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I will get to my question.

Mr. Speaker: All right. I just want to remind the member that you have been warming up for two minutes. Please place your question.

Mr. Brandt: I apologize for taking the time of the House, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the Deputy Premier is this: in light of the fact that an overwhelming percentage of those who gave their opinion in this survey indicated they were adamantly opposed to Sunday shopping, will he free up his members and allow a free vote in this House?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: If the honourable member were to examine the legislation, he would be aware that the strength of the legislation and its thrust is to give the responsibility to the municipalities to decide. It seems to me that the honourable members and their staffs or whatever are well within their rights to express that view, because with the passage of this legislation -- and the sooner we get to it the better -- then the municipalities will be able to decide this and the honourable members, as taxpayers in their local municipalities, will be able to express their views as they see fit.

I see nothing in any way inappropriate in the responses the honourable member got. I simply ask him again to use whatever influence he has with his colleagues, who seem to be moving towards a freer and freer approach to these issues as the days go by, and persuade them to allow the legislation to come before the House for the sort of debate and decision that is the basis of our democratic process.

1430

Mr. Harris: My question is to the honourable government House leader. The government House leader will know that our party, as a social experiment, has proposed that the Ontario Legislature sit on Sundays during the month of May. The reason is that this government seems ready enough to force Sunday working on the people of Ontario, so we believe that, as elected leaders in our community, we should try at first hand what the government wants our constituents to do.

My question to the House leader is quite simple: is his government willing to sit on Sundays, working Sunday to Wednesday of every week in May, so that we can see for ourselves at first hand what the effect of Sunday working will be?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my good friend the member for Nipissing that, after seven months, I really appreciate his giving me the opportunity to engage in this question period -- and a more apt and helpful question I could not imagine, because this very day, a few hours ago, the leader of the third party and I were chatting downstairs about our Sunday, yesterday, April 17. It seems that the leader of the third party and I spent a very busy, hectic day, as members of the Legislature, working almost nonstop on Sunday.

If the member is asking me whether I know anything about working on Sunday, I will answer accordingly. I suspect, like almost all members of this assembly, I work most Sundays and I am sure that members from Nipissing to Cornwall and from Kenora to Kensington would say to me, “Yes, we work all of the time on Sundays.” If the member for Nipissing does not, many of us might want to talk to him about how he spends his Sundays.

Mr. Harris: Then presumably the minister would agree with our suggestion since he works on Sunday as it is. There is a slight difference, as he knows, between working in one’s riding -- not for the members in Toronto, I understand, but for those of us who do not live in Toronto.

Over the last few months, the Premier has said that Sunday working would not affect the quality of life for the family unit in Ontario. I do not think anybody in this room -- we do work a lot on Sundays. I am surprised that the House leader accepts that. On February 9 in the Legislature, the Premier quoted jurisdictions that already have Sunday working. He said: “There is no evidence ... that this is destroying the family unit. I do not think my friend can present that evidence here at all.” My wife, for one, would disagree.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Harris: If that is the case and if it does not affect the family unit at all, why will the House leader not agree to our suggestion of a full working day for MPPs in Ontario on Sunday and let us see for ourselves the implications?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just want to say to my friend the member for Nipissing that I took the principle of his point in question to be simply this: does the government House leader recognize that members might work on Sunday?

My answer to that is, on behalf of myself and many members, including my good friend the distinguished member from Sarnia city and Point Edward village, we work on Sunday. We work on Sunday most of the time. Listening to the leader of the third party -- and we had a very friendly chat earlier this afternoon -- he sounds as if he worked all day yesterday.

I do not know of what the honourable Tory House leader speaks, because certainly members of this Legislature, over all the years I have been a member, have often -- in many cases, they would argue too often -- but on many, many occasions, they work on Sunday. The point of the honourable member’s question is, it seems to me, after the fact. The fact is, in our business, we work on Sunday, if not in and around the Legislature, certainly we work very actively in our constituency on many Sundays.

Mr. Harris: By way of final supplementary, I would remind the government House leader that he is fast blowing his one chance to answer a question. One can see why over the past seven months nobody bothers asking him anything.

I know the government House leader is aware of statements that were made by members of the interfaith committee last Friday. They said, contrary to what the Premier said, that Sunday shopping would affect the quality of life in Ontario.

He will also be aware of what we have been talking about, the domino effect, not just of jurisdictions but of a retail worker having to work and what that may do to many, many other employees; maybe he has not accepted that for transit workers, day care workers, city workers, I rhymed off about 20 groups last week. The implication, of course, is that there are a few other people who will have to work on Sunday -- our staffs, the people who make this chamber work, the media -- and we will get a real firsthand experience of what happens.

I would ask the government House leader one more time not to blow his chance to answer a question. Why would he not agree to what I think is a very logical, straightforward social experiment so that he and I and every Liberal back-bencher can experience exactly what the government is trying to force on the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to the member for Nipissing that the current legislative timetable and schedule we have is one that was carefully worked out by all members of the assembly through their representatives on a number of committees. I want the member for Nipissing to know that I feel that the current schedule we have is a good consensus.

You know, I heard over the weekend, and I would repeat in final response to the honourable member’s question, that surely the fair and reasonable thing to do within the work schedule we now have is to move forward in a positive and a productive sense to deal with the business of this House. Surely as a good democrat, the member for Nipissing would want the government to have the right to put before the chamber the government’s position in the form of legislation so that a substantive debate on the issue can begin. Surely my good friend from Nipissing, who, if nothing else -- and he is a lot of other things -- is a fairminded, reasonable democrat, would concede this much: that the government ought to have the right to introduce this legislation so that the substantive debate can begin. Then we might hear from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) what he thought here last year --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: -- when the bookstore amendment was brought forward.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Reville: Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could just clarify if that was a yes or no.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, I wish all members would take note of the clock and note how long it took for four questions.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and it is not about Sunday shopping; it is about the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

I had occasion recently to write to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) expressing my concern about the Niagara Escarpment, and I received from him assurances that his government was still committed to the Niagara Escarpment plan. I would like to ask the minister, does he support the Niagara Escarpment plan as enunciated in the act of 1985?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: We are committed to the Niagara Escarpment plan. It is a plan that is very unique in this province and in the world, I suppose. It is one that we want to maintain, but also one that we want to be able to live with and to make work.

Mrs. Grier: I am glad the minister wants to make it work, because that is precisely what I was going to ask him about.

Since 1985, the Niagara Escarpment Commission has made 38 recommendations to the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to amendments to the plan. The minister has made no decision on 19 of those recommendations; some have been before the minister for almost three years. This kind of delay undermines the credibility of the plan and undermines the credibility of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. How does the minister justify his unwillingness and his stalling of these recommendations for the plan and what answer has he got to that question?

1440

Hon. Mr. Eakins: A number of the amendments to which the honourable member refers have already been dealt with, are before a committee and will be before cabinet. There are a number of others which are in the process of approval or otherwise. I want to stress one thing, that we are not simply rubber-stamping many of the amendments which come in.

What I am doing, and I am inviting others to do also, is to go out and look at the areas which are affected by those amendments. That is something I have been doing. I have been going out to look at them personally, so I am better acquainted with the work of the commission and also with the amendments which are being presented. I can assure the member that those amendments will not be held up.

SUNSET REVIEW

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer will be aware that there may be a budget coming up on Wednesday. The Treasurer, I think, will also be aware of my special interest in spending wisely to prevent tax increases, deficits and shortfalls in priority spending areas. The Treasurer surely knows that one of the ways we could help achieve this is with mandatory sunset provisions for all expenditure programs, of the type I proposed in resolution and of the type that our party proposed in the prebudget minority report. Will the Treasurer support some form of automatic review of government expenditures through sunset provisions?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The government spending program is reviewed on a regular basis, certainly year by year at budget time. I, personally, think that is sufficient. I do believe that with some pieces of legislation, where an experimental board or some special expenditure comes in, there is nothing wrong with a section calling for a sunset review. Frankly, my own experience dealing with legislation in which the member himself may very well have had a hand in the previous government, is that where sunset reviews have come forward, they have been found to be very limited in their usefulness. I simply return to what I said to begin with, and that is that the Treasurer, in conjunction with his colleagues, reviews spending programs on a regular basis. In my view, I think that works reasonably well and is sufficient.

Mr. Harris: There are many people who think the Treasurer’s spending is totally out of control.

The sunsetting provisions we are talking about force or insist that a committee of the Legislature examine -- not some administrative committee, not some ministry committee with a vested interest in carrying on a program -- whether it makes sense or not.

When Bill 20 came in, and the employee share ownership plan, I moved an amendment which the minister accepted at that time, for a mandatory sunset review of that program. I say to the Treasurer, surely it cannot hurt to examine an existing program to see if maybe we should be putting more money into it, whether it is doing the job it was intended to do or is out of date. I would ask the Treasurer, in view of past statements he has made on controlling expenditures -- statements, not examples -- why he would not accept that and reflect it in his budget on Wednesday?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I have already indicated that I do not feel it is necessary, although I have nothing in principle against a formal review. My own responsibility as Treasurer is to review these matters on a regular basis. The honourable member who was asking the question was part of a committee that reviewed the expenditure program of the government and gave its report to the House and to me just a few weeks ago. As I recall, the committee recommended an increase in expenditure of about $4.5 billion and did not refer to any specific area where revenue might be improved or significant costs controlled.

PURCHASE OF SURPLUS POWER

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Relatively cheap and abundant energy has contributed to Ontario’s economic development, but we may soon have to compete in the American market without the benefit of this important position. We know that Quebec has plans to sell power generated by the James Bay hydro project to American utilities. We know that our federal government is leaning towards a continentalist energy policy. There will be nothing to guarantee access to this Canadian power before it is committed for export. We may even end up paying more for that source of electricity than our American competitors.

My question to the minister is, if there is any chance that electricity from Quebec is a possible option to help satisfy Ontario’s future energy needs, can the problems associated with the federal government’s continentalist policies be dealt with in any way unilaterally by our own province?

Hon. Mr. Wong: Buying electricity from Quebec is one of Ontario’s options in planning to meet its future electricity needs. This option, however, is undermined by the federal government’s moves towards a continental energy policy because it encourages utilities with surplus power potential to sell to export markets rather than, first, to Canadians.

These problems cannot be dealt with unilaterally by Ontario. The federal government has its responsibility under the National Energy Board Act to ensure that power to be exported is surplus to reasonably foreseeable Canadian needs, and the federal government is considering new policies for electricity exports.

In addition, the free trade agreement may call into question the existing mechanisms by which electricity planned for export must first be offered to neighbouring Canadian provinces.

Last, may I say I am very concerned about the possible loss of this first-offer mechanism and have expressed these concerns to my associate, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.

Mr. Owen: Should the proposed trade deal go through between Canada and the United States, and since our climate dictates the use of greater energy consumption, are we not giving the United States an unfair advantage with our own energy resources? Are we not putting ourselves into an untenable situation if this goes ahead?

Hon. Mr. Wong: As I indicated in my initial answer, we feel that the present uncertainties are weakening our position in negotiating for possible electricity purchases from neighbouring provinces.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr. Wildman: Along the lines of the question asked by my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), I would like to place a question to the minister for concrete or for agriculture, whichever he prefers to be referred to as, with regard to the protection of one of our most valuable resources.

Ontario food land is disappearing under urban concrete at an alarming rate, and this jeopardizes both the viability of agriculture in this province and the possibility of Ontario being self-sufficient in food commodities. Can the minister tell the House when the government will be releasing the food land preservation policy statement under the Planning Act, which was first circulated for public review over two years ago?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Yes, we have a food land preservation policy ready to go. We will be meeting with various groups. We will be meeting with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; we will be meeting with the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, we will be meeting with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; we will be meeting with the rural caucus; we will meet with anyone who wants to have some input into this policy, at which time it will then move through the system and go through the committees. I am hoping that within a month or two I will be able to stand in the House and introduce the policy.

Mr. Wildman: I take it from the minister’s response that he is prepared to consult with all groups that are interested in this policy and that he hopes that process will be completed this spring.

I remind him that thousands of acres of prime farm land have been lost in the 10 years since the previous government introduced its Food Land Guidelines, and now we have waited two years for this government’s policy statement. Can the minister assure the House that when the policy statement is released it will contain deadlines for municipalities to make their official plans adhere to the policy statement?

1450

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We think it is going to be a policy that will be acceptable to the municipalities, the farm organizations and anyone who has any interest whatsoever in food land preservation. It will have a certain element of flexibility in it, because the member knows as well as I do that you cannot stop growth from taking place.

Mr. Wildman: You can direct it, though.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That is right, and that is what this policy will do. We will attempt to direct planning. We will attempt to assist in the planning done by municipalities so that we can preserve agricultural land wherever possible.

Mr. Runciman: That is window-dressing.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: You cannot simply put a freeze on agricultural land. The member knows and I know that that would be naive to even think of.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. He may want to refer this, but it deals with the Osborne report. I share with my New Democratic Party colleague the suspicion that release of this report was delayed during deliberations on Bill 2. Will the minister confirm that this report was in the hands of his government during the period of deliberations on Bill 2?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I can assure the member that it was not. I appreciate the fact that at least the honourable member has couched the situation in more reasonable terms than those expressed earlier in the day. I am glad to have the chance to give all members of the House who might be interested the assurance that the recommendations from Mr. Justice Osborne were definitely not available when the bill was introduced and when it was carried forward in the House.

Mr. Runciman: I will accept that. Changing direction a little bit, as a supplementary, I am wondering if the minister would indicate whether he and his officials and his government share Mr. Justice Osborne’s views regarding no-fault auto insurance.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) really ought to answer that one and I do not think it is appropriate to refer it on the basis of a supplementary.

I do want to say that in the instance that really refers to the original question, the member’s objections to the concept of Bill 2 as he then understood it, I think the honourable member, who was sitting on the committee reviewing Bill 2, would know that there were significant changes which took place at the committee stage.

I believe there is room for competition in the rate ranges that are envisaged. If the honourable member does not agree with that, he might agree with at least one change which we would agree, both of us, is significant; that is, that the rate review board will have the decisive position having to do with the rate structure itself.

That was one of the areas of concern that Mr. Justice Osborne referred to. I really cannot comment on the timing of the writing of the report, but certainly that had been settled by the committee itself long before the House was reintroduced to the amended bill. Some of the objections which were inherent in his comments about Bill 2, or what became Bill 2, have been modified, I hope, in his own thinking, by events.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. As we are aware, immigration plays a very significant role in our economic, social and cultural life in Ontario. Many representatives of our multicultural communities in Ontario have said that nothing makes them more proud than the satisfaction received from participating in the democratic electoral process.

Can the minister advise this House of what initiatives his ministry will undertake to reach out to the multicultural community of our province, to inform them of the newest changes to the enumeration process which the government passed last week?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I thank the member for his question. As I think most of us in the House know, the government is committed to ensuring that in all our programs and policies we reflect the multicultural reality of this province.

When the bill was passed last week, the first thing we did was to meet with the multilingual media -- the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaitre), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) and the parliamentary assistant for Education -- to explain the changes. The second thing we are doing is a communications plan, in 40 different languages, to explain the enumeration process and to ensure to the best of our ability that they are aware of it.

We have also notified about 500 community groups that work with people whose first language may not be English or French to inform them of the enumeration process and to suggest that if they have any questions they talk to us and we can talk to them in English, French or in the language of their choice.

The last thing is that if, as a result of the mailing -- which, incidentally, goes out at the end of this month to almost six million households -- there still is the requirement for enumeration, we will assist in ensuring that enumerators are available to deal with the language of choice. I am hopeful that those activities will be helpful to ensure a strong enumeration.

Mr. Faubert: By way of supplementary, as the minister is aware, Scarborough is a city rich in multicultural diversity and participation, but can the minister advise the House where an immigrant can turn if he or she is having difficulty understanding our electoral process or if he or she has not been reached by those very initiatives the minister has just outlined?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I guess there are two final things that I have not mentioned. If they still are having difficulty, there is a toll-free number, a 1-800 number, and those phones will be staffed by people who can deal in virtually any language -- l will not guarantee every language. If, in the final analysis, they are still having difficulty, I might suggest that they phone the members’ offices, and I think each of us will do our very best to respond to those needs.

ABANDONED RAILWAY LINES

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. On March 8, I wrote to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation concerning the concept of converting abandoned railway lines into recreational corridors and linear parkways.

Given that rail companies are abandoning lines in dozens of small communities across the province and given the opportunity these abandoned lines have for recreational uses, will the minister endorse the idea of using abandoned lines for trails, and will the minister today give an assurance to this House that he will take immediate action to protect such corridors for recreational uses?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: As the member may know, the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) asked a similar question concerning lines in our area. I guess I would have to tell the member that we have provided assistance to the county of Hastings and the township of Collingwood so that they can study the feasibility of acquiring abandoned lines in their area, but I might also tell the member that, traditionally, this ministry is not involved in owning and operating recreational facilities.

Mr. Farnan: This is a very important area. Many of these corridors often pass through several municipalities -- the minister himself has referred to one already in his own area -- and this makes the co-ordination of extended corridors difficult. In my own area, for example, the rail line runs through Cambridge, North Dumfries, Branchton, South Dumfries and part of the village of Harrisburg and ends up at the village of Lynden, thus passing through several communities.

Will the minister acknowledge the need for leadership and not just studies on the part of the provincial government, not only to protect the lines but also to implement a co-ordinated program of conversion for recreational purposes?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I can tell the member that this matter is of concern to us. My ministry staff within both the ministry head office and the regional offices are looking very closely at the problem that exists. I agree with the member that it is, or could be, a very important recreational use.

Again, as I say, it is our preference that in some ways the different municipalities would co-ordinate this effort, since they are usually the owners of recreational facilities. I believe we would be there to assist them in grants and such things as equipment to help groom trails and look after other maintenance. But again, it is still under review by the ministry and I will get back to the member and other members when a decision is made.

1500

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the minister who was disappearing under the desk over there -- see he has now taken his own seat -- the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons.

About 190 Metro drivers of Wheel-Trans buses for the disabled have launched a work slowdown effective this morning. Work slowdowns will have a serious effect on disabled persons’ ability to get to work on time, to get home in the evenings or to get medical attention.

What does this minister intend to do to ensure that our disabled people will continue to receive regular service, service that they depend on for their livelihood and their health?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: As do all persons working in our society, disabled people to a great extent depend on public transportation, and I am hoping that through negotiations between the employees and the employer we can have an equitable settlement which will prevent to any great extent any disruption to the disabled community.

I have been in touch with the office of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and the office of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara). This issue is being monitored and we hope that the disruption the honourable member talks about does not take place.

Mrs. Marland: Any slowdown in fact is a disruption to these people. Wheel-Trans is the only mode of transportation for many disabled people in Metro. Given the legitimate request by Wheel-Trans drivers for wage parity with the Toronto Transit Commission and other drivers, can the minister guarantee to the thousands of people who rely on Wheel-Trans that this dispute will be resolved without strike action and without any further disruption in their lives?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: As the honourable member knows, it is not possible for me, as minister responsible for disabled persons, to resolve the contract dispute between the employees and the employer. We, as a government, as I said earlier, are monitoring the situation. The Minister of Labour has a number of staff people at his disposal within the ministry who can help the employees and the employer negotiate a settlement. We hope that is exactly what takes place.

The member opposite knows that it is not possible for any of the ministers to issue a contract to both sides and say: “Here it is. Sign it. “ We are hoping that reason prevails and we are hoping that there is not the disruption to the disabled community that the member is very concerned about.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Treasurer. A short time ago, a constituent of mine brought to my attention a concern. He had gone to purchase a particular commodity at a retail store with one of these coupons that you clip out of the newspaper, whereby you receive a 60-cent or $1 reduction from the price. He was charged the sales tax on the full price; in other words, the coupon plus what he had paid in cash.

I would like to ask the Treasurer whether that is the appropriate way that retail sales tax is to be applied or whether it is to be applied only on the cash portion of the purchase.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The tax is applicable to the selling price. I really ought to have asked my colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) to answer this because he is knowledgeable in all these important matters, but since the question is put to me, it is on the selling price.

Mr. Callahan: The same constituent brought to my attention the fact that in going to two other stores and employing the same technique, the tax was in fact charged only on the cash portion. In the light of the Treasurer’s answer, I wonder whether there is not some confusion out there in the marketplace, and perhaps we are losing significant revenue. I wonder if his office would look into that matter.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The Minister of Revenue and I have been in consultation on this matter, and he has indicated to me that a new bulletin has been issued to clarify once and for all that, as usual, you pay the tax on the larger amount.

ONTARIO SHARE AND DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question to the Minister of Financial Institutions. Can the minister explain why he and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) have rejected the suggestions of Ontario’s caisses populaires regarding the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp.?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is unfortunate that the question comes at a time when question period is just completed because it is an extremely important one. Perhaps I might suggest that the honourable member place the question again because --

Mr. Runciman: You’ll have an answer tomorrow.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I have an answer now, if the member wants to hear it. I have been somewhat surprised that the honourable members and their colleagues have not brought this matter to my attention because I think it is quite important.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Adams: I have a petition from over 600 people concerning the proposed transfer of Peterborough’s oldest high school to the separate board. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, are concerned with the possible transfer of Peterborough collegiate and vocational school from the Peterborough county public board of education to the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

“The transfer of our school will take place only if the provincial government promises funding for a new separate school by 1994.

“Our separate school board states that they need a school for 1,400 students -- our school has a ministry-rated capacity of only 1,020.

“The regulations of Bill 30 state that no funding will be given where there is sufficient space in the public school system to absorb the excessive students from the separate school system.

“Therefore, we feel that building a new separate school in the Peterborough area is a waste of taxpayers’ money and we want the Minister of Education to turn down our separate school board’s request for funding for a new school.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition that is signed by 16 people from Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma district and it reads as follows:

“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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend time together;

1510

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

Mr. Harris: I have a petition 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 Premier David Peterson has refused to listen to the people of Ontario and has chosen to unilaterally impose Sunday shopping on an unwilling public, we request that consideration be given to the views of these persons from North Bay who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“‘In recognition of the importance of a day of pause in our Canadian society, we ask that the Retail Business Holidays Act be maintained and strengthened and that the act remain under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Legislature, rather than be transferred to local municipalities for administration.’”

This is signed by a goodly number of citizens of my riding, the great riding of Nipissing.

Mr. Laughren: This is a petition 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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario” -- NATO -- ”families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

Mr. Speaker: Just before I recognize any other members, I might inform the House, as I have on previous occasions, and now having listened to two petitioners today, I believe the petitions were exactly the same. I would like to remind all members of 31 (a) and 31 (b), that, “A petition to the House may be presented at any time during the session by a member filing it with the Clerk of the House or in the manner set out in clause (b).”

I would just like to again remind all members of clause (b): “A member may present” -- l hope they will take note of that word “present” -- ”a petition from his place in the House during the routine proceedings under the proceeding ‘Petitions.’ He shall endorse his name thereon and confine himself to a statement of the petitioners, the number of signatures and the material allegations.”

Many members may recall that there have been a number of occasions in the last year or two years when I have reminded members that it is not necessary to read the “whereases.” The “therefore” really contains what we call the “material allegation.” I would appreciate it if all members could adhere to the rules.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Sola: I have a petition here from the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association and from the Dufferin-Peel separate school board. The petition reads as follows:

“The Dufferin-Peel separate school board is in drastic need of capital funding for the year 1988-89. Present school buildings are bursting at the seams. Projected growth indicates that the system will expand by 4,000 additional students next year. The provincial government must show their commitment to quality education by providing the capital funds required. These funds are a realistic need, not a luxury.

“Quality education deserves an adequate physical environment. The students, parents and teachers of Dufferin-Peel are entitled to no less. “

It is signed by over 100 people, including teachers and students.

MOBILE HOME INSURANCE

Mr. Kozyra: I would like to introduce a petition from constituents of the riding of Cochrane North regarding concerns about mobile home insurance policies. Thank you.

HEURES OUVRABLES / RETAIL STORE HOURS

M. Villeneuve: J’ai une pétition qui se lit comme suit:

À l’honorable lieutenant-gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de la province de l’Ontario:

« Nous, les soussignés, soumettons la pétition ci-jointe au parlement de l’Assemblée législative de la province de l’Ontario », laquelle provient des évêques catholiques de l’Ontario:

« Le dimanche est, pour les chrétiens, la célébration hebdomadaire de la résurrection du Seigneur, du triomphe de la vie sur la mort, une célébration de paix et de réconciliation.

« Beaucoup de nos concitoyens et concitoyennes de l’Ontario ne partagent pas cette vision du dimanche, mais tous tiennent à sauvegarder un rythme de vie ordonné qui consacre le dimanche au repos et aux joies familiales.

« Nous demandons instamment que soit respectée cette tradition établie chez nous depuis longtemps, mais qui tend malheureusement un peu partout à disparaître. Octroyer aux juridictions locales le pouvoir d’opter pour l’ouverture illimitée des magasins le dimanche signifierait l’abandon de cette tradition historique de l’Ontario au jeu de la compétition commerciale et de l’opportunisme économique.

« Nous insistons donc auprès du gouvernement de l’Ontario pour qu’il tienne compte des appels lancés par les familles, les travailleurs et travailleuses, les hommes et les femmes d’affaires, et renverse sa politique de “l’option locale”. Nous pensons que seule une ligne d’action commune à toute la province pourra protéger les valeurs familiales qu’avec un grand nombre de nos concitoyens inquiets nous considérons comme étant ici indubitablement en jeu. »

Elle est signée par les évêques catholiques de la province de l’Ontario ainsi que moi-même.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a petition signed by residents of Toronto of which I would like to read all the material allegations because they are slightly different from those just brought in by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren).

“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:

Mr. Black: Heard that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Parts of it are similar and there are parts that are different.

1520

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report commented as follows on the impact of wide-open Sunday retailing on working people and working families: ‘The committee strongly believes that wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario would represent an added pressure in our fast-paced society and a strain upon the family structure’; and

“Whereas it continued: ‘This strain would be imposed particularly on the families of retail employees, many of whom are women, who might then be required to work on Sunday. The committee also believes that wide-open Sunday shopping would have an adverse impact upon common time together for primarily female-led, single-parent families’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that, on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and”

You will notice that part was different from what was in the last one.

Mr. Speaker: I am listening carefully.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: “Whereas the Ontario government submitted a report prepared by its own women’s directorate to the 1987 annual conference of ministers responsible for the status of women, and that report noted the need for greater government sensitivity to changes in hours of work and hours of business in terms of ‘recognizing the need for time to be set aside when all families can be together’ and the need to ‘ensure that common time off is set aside when all families can be together’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act, to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regarding Sunday work hours, to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I will duly sign it.

Mr. Speaker: This again might be the appropriate time for me to remind the honourable members of section 31(b) which states that the member may present a petition and confine himself to a statement of the petitioners, including the material allegations, not the reasons for the material allegations. I hope that is helpful to the member.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Perhaps you can be clearer in what you are suggesting to us. You are much more expert at the rules than I would claim to be.

It is my understanding, in the way these petitions are worded and the way the petitions are worded that are presented to parliament, that the “whereases” are the material allegations and the urging of the government is, in fact, the action statement that the petitioners are asking the government. So we are reading strictly material allegations and the conclusions that arise out of those material allegations.

I do not think there has been any precedent set in this Legislature, since I have been a member, when a Speaker has ruled that we cannot read the entire petitions. Unless you are prepared to rule in some way, I suggest that the best way proceed this afternoon is to allow the petitions to be heard in parliament.

Mr Speaker: I am not here to debate the matter. I am here to assist the members to understand the rules as they have been set out and passed by the members of the House. I think it is probably a matter of opinion as to which are the material allegations. As I have said, I have stated on a number of other occasions that I felt that when you came to the “therefore,” that would be the material allegation.

Mr. Faubert: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is signed by a number of electors of Ontario and I have appended my own signature. It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas the Honourable Joan Smith, Solicitor General, the Honourable Ian Scott, Attorney General, and the Honourable Gregory Sorbara, Minister of Labour, have made statements to the Legislature announcing the introduction of legislation dealing with the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act and companion amendments to the Employment Standards Act to protect all retail workers in Ontario; and

“Whereas these aforementioned legislative initiatives will address the present inequities and unfairness of the existing Retail Business Holidays Act by amending this act to create a new act which is fair, because it allows freedom of choice to Ontario communities, is workable and enforceable, provides effective protection for all retail workers, provides for an orderly transition of exemptions over a flve-year period, protects religious beliefs and treats retailers across the province more equitably, and

“Whereas the opposition parties by way of exploiting the standing orders of this Legislature by presenting a series of petitions to the Legislature in a manner which is delaying the traditional proceedings and business of this House are doing a disservice to the people of Ontario; and

“Whereas this repetitious presentation of petitions is thereby delaying unnecessarily the introduction, debate and referral of this legislation to committee, thereby further delaying said legislation which will provide the people of Ontario with fair, coherent, enforceable law which allows them freedom of choice based on needs and values of their communities; corrects the previous legislation which was widely abused; gives all retail workers the right of refusal of Sunday work, a new right for every worker in the retail sector in Ontario; gives retail lessees the freedom to choose whether to open or close on Sunday without threat of reprisal; reflects the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of freedom of religion under the charter by recognizing a new Sabbatarian exemption which protects retailers who observe a Sabbath other than Sunday; and

“Whereas delaying of the introduction and debate of this legislation further delays the proceedings and legitimate business of this Legislature and further contributes to the dissemination of the opposition myth that this legislation proposes a ‘wide-open’ Sunday whereas the opposite is the objective of the legislation;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislature of Ontario to cease this abuse of the traditions of this House and Parliament in general and allow debate on the Sunday closing legislation to proceed.”

Mr. Speaker: It would certainly appear to me that the members do not agree with the Speaker’s interpretation of the standing order. The member for Mississauga South.

Mr. Faubert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do concur with your ruling and that was a ruling I sought last Thursday, when I raised the matter in the House.

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This petition is from St. Stephen’s-on-the-Hill United Church, Indian Road, Mississauga and it states:

“We, the undersigned members and adherents of St. Stephen’s-on-the-Hill United Church, wish to express our opposition to the provincial government transferring authority to legislate on Sunday shopping entirely to the municipalities and to our opposition to open Sundays in Ontario.”

This petition is signed by 42 persons.

I also have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the Clarkson Road Presbyterian Church, Clarkson Road, Mississauga, which states:

“We are wishing to express our opposition to expanding Sunday shopping. We believe the availability of Sunday retail shopping has gone far enough. To further extend Sunday shopping would make Sundays no different from the rest of the week. It would further disrupt the family unit and weaken our social structure. Not only would regular shopping take place on Sunday, but some family members would also be required to man these stores on a day that should be more centred around the family unit.

“We provided the opportunity for families in our congregation to record their opposition to Sunday shopping during two Sundays in March and this petition has also included that the laws regarding Sunday opening should remain in the hands of the provincial government.”

Attached is this petition which includes 134 names opposed to Sunday shopping.

I have another petition.

1530

Mr. Speaker: I believe there was an agreement to rotate.

Mrs. Marland: We missed a couple of turns, but I will adhere to your direction.

Mr. Pouliot: With the highest respect, the point is well taken. However, I have a petition signed by two concerned residents, one from Guelph and the other concerned citizen from the city of Toronto. They are of the opinion that the message can never be repeated too often. As always, it is addressed 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 Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the Ontario government submitted a report prepared by its own women’s directorate to the 1987 annual conference of ministers responsible for the status of women, and that report noted the need for greater government sensitivity to changes in hours of work and hours of business in terms of ‘recognizing the need for time to be set aside when all families can be together’ and the need to ‘ensure that common time off is set aside when all families can be together’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act, to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours, to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

Mr. McLean: I have a petition signed by 31 people addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petition opposes Sunday shopping and supports keeping Sunday as a day of rest.

“Whereas this sensitive issue, as you are aware, has been debated for now approximately two years, the government has chosen not to consult with the working people of this province during its deliberations. In this instance, I am referring to the people who are going to have to give up their family time on Sunday in order to work or, in some instances, going to work will interfere with their religious beliefs;

“Whereas it is incredible to me that the government acted in such an irresponsible manner as to push this issue off on to the municipalities without any consultation or thought as to the chaos this would create;

“In accordance with, and in support of, the joint declaration of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Toronto, the United Church, the Greek Orthodox church and the Anglican diocese of Toronto, I enclose a list of names and addresses of members of the congregation of St. Luke’s Anglican church, Price’s Corners, who support keeping Sunday as a day of rest and therefore are opposed to open Sundays.”

I also have another petition, signed by 120 people, addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This petition also opposes Sunday shopping and supports keeping Sunday as a day of rest. It reads as follows:

“Whereas this sensitive issue, as you are aware, has been debated now for approximately two years, the government chose not to consult with the working people of this province during its deliberations. In this instance, I am referring to the people who are going to have to give up their family time on Sunday in order to work or, in some instances, going to work will interfere with their religious beliefs;

“The question of Sunday openings across the province of Ontario presents a difficult problem for many of us. We do not limit our reservations to religious grounds. We are deeply concerned, on humanitarian grounds, about the effect a wide-open Sunday would have on family life and employment practices. To keep Sunday as a day of rest and family contact will be virtually impossible for many, due to the business pressures which will be exerted even on those who wish to close.

“We, the undersigned, wish our member of the provincial Legislature and our municipal representatives to know our position on this matter. We make this statement and appeal, in conjunction with the Anglican Church of the diocese of Toronto, the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Toronto and the United Church and the Greek Orthodox church.”

I also have another petition, signed by --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs. Marland: No.

The Deputy Speaker: No?

Mrs. Marland: Yes, OK.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member can’t just rush in here and petition.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes or no?

Mrs. Marland: Yes; thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have not left here. The Speaker should know I have not left the chamber yet this afternoon.

I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

“I am becoming increasingly uneasy about the apparent collapse of Liberal morality. In this instance, I am referring to the party’s efforts to permit Sunday shopping in Ontario. I presume you have been made aware of the arguments against wide-open Sunday shopping, and for that reason I will not repeat them. I assume that you know as well as I the effect Sunday shopping will have on family life, on workers and on the community.

“Perhaps you should recognize the validity of these arguments. The Premier has been elected to represent the citizens of Ontario. Listen to us. Please have the foresight to prevent the demise of our society. Please ensure that Sunday shopping is not permitted anywhere in Ontario. This province does not want Sunday shopping. Listen to us, the people of Ontario, and heed our advice.”

This is signed by Alison Williams of 1495 Clarkson Road North, Mississauga, and she is 20 years of age.

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition on the subject of Sunday shopping to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is from four constituents, and I know that they will definitely want to see it in Hansard, so that the government may be aware of their opinions on this subject. It reads as follows:

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

1540

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

I support the petition.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition 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 Premier David Peterson’s proposal for Sunday shopping does not mean more business, but rather the same business spread over seven instead of six days, thereby increasing costs for both retailers and consumers, we request that consideration be given to the views of 52 persons from London --

Mr. Villeneuve: London?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: -- the Premier’s home town -- ”who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“‘We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.’”

This is signed by myself.

I have another petition and it also is addressed 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 member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), the member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong), the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams) and the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary), all Liberal members of this Legislature, have endorsed petitions opposed to Sunday shopping; and

“Whereas the Premier has chosen to push on with legislation contrary to the personal wishes of his own caucus” -- imagine that -- ”we request that consideration be given to the views of 53 persons from across Ontario who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

I have signed that as well.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a petition signed by a number of people going through one of the shopping malls in my riding --

Mr. Ballinger: A bowling alley?

Mr. Mackenzie: We have some more coming from there later today.

Mr. Callahan: Have you got someone out here doing it now?

Mr. Mackenzie: How is the Don Jail these days?

Mr. Callahan: I don’t know. Why don’t you go down there and get a few signatures?

Mr. Mackenzie: That’s where they all end up, anyway.

The Deputy Speaker: The member will address his petition through the chair.

Mr. Mackenzie: The petition reads:

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature” -- including the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) -- ”reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

Signed by seven people on a fast run through the Centre Mall plaza in my riding.

Mrs. Cunningham: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“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 real issue is working on Sundays, not shopping on Sundays;

“Whereas Sunday shopping won’t improve family life;

“Whereas Sunday shopping is unfair to certain retail employees;

“Whereas customers are not demanding more shopping time;

“Whereas no retailer can afford to lose the competitive edge;

“Whereas we would like to add our voices to the growing concern over Sunday shopping;

“We strongly oppose Sunday openings. We are not concerned about Sunday shopping. We are concerned about having to work on Sunday.”

The petition has been signed by 13 persons from across Ontario, and they state that they believe the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day, and the decision to remain closed and to enforce closing must be made at the provincial level.

I have signed this petition and I will turn it over at this time to the House.

1550

Mr. Reville: I should like to present a petition which reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas, it continued: ‘This strain would be imposed particularly on the families of retail employees, many of whom are women, who might then be required to work on Sunday. The committee also believes that wide-open Sunday shopping would have an adverse impact upon common time together for primarily female-led single-parent families’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act, to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours, to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

This petition is signed by seven petitioners, and I have endorsed my name hereon pursuant to rule 31 (b) of the standing orders.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a petition as follows:

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

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

“Whereas Sunday shopping will impact negatively on single-parent families, we request that consideration be given to the views of 49 individuals from across the length and breadth of this province” -- they cover the town of Prescott, the town of Puslinch and the town of Parkhill who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need or want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

I fully endorse this petition.

Mr. Charlton: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by four residents from my riding. It reads as follows:

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

I have added my name to that petition.

I have another petition here from members of the congregation from Olivet United Church in my riding.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: How many on that?

Mr. Charlton: How many on this?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: You had four on the last one.

Mr. Charlton: Oh, it looks like about 30.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.”

Mr. D. R. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would question the propriety of a member of this House signing a petition in the House to present it to the House. Surely those petitions are to be signed outside the House and then presented by the constituents to the member to be presented to the House.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: For a petition to be in order in this House the member presenting it must also sign it.

Mr. B. Rae: It has to be endorsed by the member. When you present the petition, you have to endorse it. All you are doing is endorsing it.

The Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr. Charlton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

“We, the undersigned, do petition as follows:

“1. Since we are in agreement with the present restrictions concerning Sunday store openings, we petition that these restrictions be retained and that they be enforced by the government of Ontario.

“2. We strongly feel that legislation governing Sunday store openings should be uniform across the province and that such legislation is the responsibility of the provincial government. To authorize municipalities to legislate Sunday store opening bylaws would set one municipality against another, creating bitter divisions between municipalities and mass confusion in the marketplace. Therefore, we petition that the authority for Sunday store opening legislation not be delegated to municipalities.”

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition from residents of the town of Markham, which reads as follows:

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 all-party committee of the Legislature on retail store hours unanimously recommended a common pause day so that families can get together and whereas the Solicitor General, the Honourable Joan Smith, signed that committee report but now has failed to live by its recommendations, we request that consideration be given to the views of the 15 persons from the town of Markham who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

1600

“We, the undersigned, wish to express our opposition to changes in Sunday shopping laws which threaten to transform Sunday into just another day for doing business.

“The undersigned are in favour of limiting Sunday shopping for the following reasons:

“1. As Christians in the reform tradition” -- these are all members and adherents of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Markham -- ”we value Sunday as a day for worship and rest.

“2. Regardless of religion, families need a regular, patterned opportunity for the whole family to share time.

“3. Regardless of religion, individuals need a regular, consistent opportunity for rest and recreation. An open Sunday will erode that opportunity greatly.”

It was signed by these constituents and also by myself in submitting it.

Miss Martel: It is a pleasure for me to join in this democratic process. I too have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government;’ and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario;’ and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

Mr. Villeneuve: I too have a petition. It reads as follows:

“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 David Peterson’s wide-open Sunday shopping will erode the tradition of a common day of rest and the cohesiveness of the family unit, we request that consideration be given to the views of 50 residents from the London area” -- home of the Premier, home of the Solicitor General and home of our newest colleague, the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) -- ”people who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees, who will have to spend Sunday at work instead of with their families.”

I fully endorse this petition and have signed it.

Mr. Hampton: It is indeed a pleasure to be able to convey to the House the feelings and views of some of the members of my constituency. They have stated as follows:

“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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think there needs to be some accuracy here. If we are not allowed to introduce an accurate bill, then let us at least stay with the facts. Nobody has said we are going to repeal anything.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: First, I would like you to rule as to whether that is indeed a point of order, since it is hardly appropriate for a member of the House to determine whether a petitioner, in making a legitimate petition, is telling the truth.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is a point of information. Will the member for Rainy River please continue?

Mr. Hampton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might say to the Solicitor General, if I may, that if she wishes to conduct a more --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Please read your petition through the Speaker.

Mr. Hampton: “Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

That petition is signed by 15 residents of the township of Atikokan and it is also signed by myself.

Mr. Allen: I have two petitions here, one 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This is signed by 35 people and I have endorsed it.

1610

I have, further, a petition which reads as follows:

“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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

This is signed by 14 persons and I have endorsed the petition.

Mrs. Cunningham: I have a number of petitions with regard to Sunday shopping. They are from around the London area, most of them from the county of Middlesex.

“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 Premier David Peterson has refused to listen to the people of Ontario and has chosen to unilaterally impose Sunday shopping on an unwilling public, we request that consideration be given to the views of 106 persons from London and vicinity who have signed a petition which reads, in part” -- this is only part of it -- ”as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

I have added my signature to this and I will turn them over to the House at this time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a petition here from 30 some people from Westmount Baptist Church in Hamilton West, the riding of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), in the city just 45 or 50 miles east of here --

Mr. Wildman: West of here.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: -- west of here -- that I have no doubt you have visited any number of times, Mr. Speaker. I was thinking east; I always think of you, Mr. Speaker. To get to the petition itself:

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

“We, the undersigned” -- those people from Hamilton West that I mentioned -- ”beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government” -- some here in the House, I will note -- ”have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987” -- less than a year ago -- ”as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

This, again, was signed by 37 members of the Westmount Baptist Church and by myself, and I concur wholeheartedly.

Mr. McLean: “We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), the member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong), the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams), the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary)” -- and probably several other Liberal backbenchers; these are all Liberal members of this Legislature -- ”have endorsed petitions opposed to Sunday shopping; and

“Whereas the Premier has chosen to push on with legislation contrary to the personal wishes of his own caucus, we request that consideration be given to the views of 53 persons from across Ontario who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

I have another petition:

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

“Whereas David Peterson’s wide-open Sunday shopping will erode the tradition of a common pause day of rest and the cohesiveness of the family unit, we request that consideration be given to the views of 47 persons from across Ontario who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

Mr. B. Rae: I have a petition signed by several members of Humbercrest United Church, 16 Baby Point Road in Toronto, which is not too far from where I live, so many of my neighbours have signed this.

Mr. Miller: Editorializing?

Mr. B. Rae: I am just informing the House with respect to where these people are from. I would like to read it, as follows:

“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:

1620

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows -- ”

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled so strongly it is hard for me to even hear the sound of my own constituents, and I am sure you would not want that to happen.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. B. Rae: “‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family, which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the Ontario government submitted a report prepared by its own women’s directorate to the 1987 annual conference of ministers responsible for the status of women, and that report noted the need for greater government sensitivity to changes and hours of work and hours of business in terms of ‘recognizing the need for time to be set aside when all families can be together’ and the need to ‘ensure that common time off is set aside when all families can be together’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

It is signed by a number of constituents.

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition. It reads as follows:

“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 majority of Ontarians want family time together and not wide-open Sunday shopping, we request that consideration be given to the views of 53 persons from London who have signed this petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

It is signed by 53 people from the London area.

I have another petition. It reads as follows:

“To His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the majority of Ontarians want family time together and not wide-open Sunday shopping, we request that consideration be given to the views of these people from Hastings county who have signed this petition.”

It is signed by 16 people from the county of Hastings.

Le vice-président: Le député d’Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Did anyone ever tell you that you have a remarkable resemblance to Louis Napoleon?

The Deputy Speaker: The petition is?

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition which reads as follows:

“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” --

Mr. Reycraft: You can’t insult the Speaker like that.

Mr. Wildman: I did not mean it as an insult. I meant it as a compliment -- a Bonaparte indeed.

The Deputy Speaker: Please carry on with the petition.

Mr Wildman: I will start over.

“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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal” -- red-tie -- ”government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal” -- red-tie -- ”government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, which have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and” --

Mr. Callahan: We’re going to give you an A-plus.

Mr. Wildman: He is interrupting.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Wildman: “Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned with the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

This petition is signed by two ladies from Algoma, one of whom is my wife.

Mr. Villeneuve: I also have a petition signed by 55 people from London and Ingersoll -- a number of Smiths from Ingersoll, by the way. It reads as follows:

“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” --

Mr. Callahan: You got that in Niagara Falls, I bet.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a very strong voice, Mr. Speaker.

“Whereas Premier David Peterson wants world-class Sunday shopping, but the people of Ontario do not, we request that consideration be given to the views of 55 persons” -- whose names are attached hereto -- ”a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

I have signed and endorsed this petition and I present it to the Legislature.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I present this petition probably on behalf of the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) more than anyone else in this place.

“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:

1630

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

This is signed by a remarkable group of people who gathered on Saturday night to nominate for re-election Howard McCurdy in the great riding of Windsor-St. Clair-Beach.”

Mrs. Marland: I stand to present a petition:

“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 Ontario municipalities are opposed to the Peterson local option for Sunday shopping, we request that consideration be given to the views of these 45 persons from Lyndwood United Church, in the riding of Mississauga South, Mississauga, who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We love our families. Do not legislate employees to work on Sundays. We do not need wide-open Sunday shopping.”

I also have another petition:

“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:

“This brief is to express our strong opposition to Sunday openings across the province of Ontario.

“First, as Christians and Roman Catholics, members of St. Christopher’s parish, we feel this will take away a great deal of the sacredness of Sunday.”

Mr. Black: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Did I understand the member to suggest that Christians and Roman Catholics are not the same?

The Deputy Speaker: Out of order.

Mrs. Marland: I think it is unfortunate to be interrupted by someone who questions the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity.

The Deputy Speaker: The petition is?

Mrs. Marland: I will continue to read this petition in its total context:

“This brief is to express our strong opposition to Sunday openings across the province of Ontario.

“First, as Christians and Roman Catholics, members of St. Christopher’s parish, we feel this will take away a great deal of the sacredness of Sunday. At the rate it’s going, soon there will be a new calendar with only six days in a week. There won’t be a day left called Sunday, as it is being treated like any other day.

“Secondly, even for people without strong religious convictions, it has a tremendous impact on their family life as they feel undue pressure to compete with neighbouring businesses or they are harassed by demanding employees. Along with the effect on family life is the added stress on their physical and emotional wellbeing.

“Looking at the overall picture, it somehow does not seem to justify one extra day. Are six days not enough? Rest, relaxation, family contact should be one of greater value and importance.”

This petition is signed by Joseph and Suzanne Campbell of 1381 Seaview Drive, Mississauga, and I present this petition on their behalf.

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition:

“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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“We therefore urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

It is signed by 28 citizens of the province.

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition:

“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 Premier David Peterson has refused to listen to the people of Ontario and has chosen to unilaterally impose Sunday shopping on an unwilling public, we request that consideration be given to the views of 52 persons from London who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

As I say, it is signed by 52 people from the London area.

“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 all-party committee of the Legislature on retail store hours unanimously recommended a common pause day so that families can get together; and

“Whereas the Solicitor General, Joan Smith, signed that committee report but has now failed to live up to its recommendations, we request that consideration be given to the view of 19 persons from Northumberland county.”

It is signed, as I say, by 19 people from Northumberland county.

1640

Ms. Bryden: I wish to present a petition in opposition to Sunday shopping from some residents of Metropolitan Toronto, and I am proud to engage in this democratic process of bringing their petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I hope that they are both and all of them listening.

The petitioners request as follows:

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people, and

I support this petition.

Mrs. Marland: I rise to present a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which says:

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

“We are opposed to Sunday shopping and we want to retain a common pause day in Ontario. We oppose the transfer to the municipalities of responsibility in this matter.”

This petition is signed by 135 members of the First United Church, Port Credit, Mississauga, and comes in addition to a petition that was presented from this church last week.

I also have a second petition:

“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 individuals need a regular, consistent opportunity for rest and recreation, and

“Whereas an open Sunday will erode that opportunity greatly;

“We request that consideration be given to the views of 53 people from across s Ontario who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

Mr. Mackenzie: This is probably the most important petition of all in the number that I still have on my desk, although it contains only two names, one of them being the person I listen to most, and that is my good wife. She also made it clear that I was to tell the House what she thought of it, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Black: Who is the second one, Bob?

Mr. Mackenzie: A retired social worker of some renown in our community.

“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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

Interjections.

Mr. Mackenzie: My wife says you people should be ashamed of yourselves.

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and” --

Mr. Ballinger: So do we.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why don’t you vote against it, then?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: “Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire;” -- I think the vote was 60-some to three -- ”and

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I am proud to submit that with the names on it and my own signature on it.

1650

Mr. McLean: I just want to complete the petitions that I have here and I will be finished for the day. I want to present this petition on behalf of a lot of those people from Waterloo who are very much opposed to Sunday shopping.

“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:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sunday at work instead of with their families.”

I have another petition. It is on behalf of a lot of those people from Muskoka, Georgian Bay and Midland who do not have the opportunity to have their member get up here and make this presentation. I want to do it on their behalf. It says:

“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 individuals need a regular, consistent opportunity for rest and recreation; and

“Whereas an open Sunday will erode that opportunity greatly;

“We request that consideration be given to the views of 52 persons from across Ontario who have signed a petition, which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families in Midland and Muskoka in the summer.”

Mr. Reville: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

This petition is signed by three petitioners, all of whom live in Toronto.

Mr. Cousens: I am very sorry that I have to present another petition, but there are many more to come. They are just coming in faster than we can read them. This petition reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to present this petition to the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas the majority of Ontarians want family time together and not wide-open Sunday shopping, we request that consideration be given to the views of these persons who have signed a petition, which reads, in part, as follows:

“We, the undersigned, wish to express our opposition to changes in Sunday shopping laws which threaten to transform Sunday into just another day for doing business. The undersigned are in favour of limiting Sunday shopping for the following reasons:

“1. As Christians in the reformed tradition, we value Sunday as a day for worship and rest.

“2. Regardless of religion, families need a regular, patterned opportunity for the whole family to share time.

“3. Regardless of religion, individuals need a regular, consistent opportunity for rest and recreation. An open Sunday will erode that opportunity.”

I present this petition from people of the town of Markham.

Mr. Charlton: I have a petition signed by 16 members of the Olivet United Church in Hamilton, who are residents of my riding and the good riding of Hamilton West.

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

“We, the undersigned, do petition as follows:

“1. Since we are in agreement with the present restrictions concerning Sunday store openings, we petition that these restrictions be retained and that they be enforced by the government of Ontario.

“2. We strongly feel that legislation governing Sunday store openings should be uniform across the province and that such legislation is the responsibility of the provincial government. To authorize municipalities to legislate Sunday store opening by-laws would set one municipality against another, creating bitter divisions between municipalities and mass confusion in the marketplace;

“Therefore, we petition that the authority for Sunday store opening legislation not be delegated to municipalities.”

Mr. Eves: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

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

“Whereas David Peterson wants world-class Sunday shopping but the people of Ontario do not, we request that consideration be given to the views of 51 persons” -- and I know the Speaker will be interested in this -- ”from St. Thomas Ontario, who have signed the petition, which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

Mr. Farnan: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal Government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

1700

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition, which reads as follows:

“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 individuals need a regular, consistent opportunity for rest and recreation; and

“Whereas an open Sunday will erode that opportunity greatly;

“We request that consideration be given to the views of 48 persons from London who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

I am very pleased to have signed that petition. I have one other petition, which is also addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

I support that very strongly and have signed the petition.

Mr. Allen: I have a petition in my hand from 17 members of Melrose United Church in Hamilton as follows:

“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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

I endorse this petition and I send it to the Clerk.

Mrs. Marland: It gives me pleasure to present this petition.

“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:

“We, the undersigned, members of the church of St. Luke, 1513 Dixie Road, Mississauga, wish to express opposition to wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario. We believe it would be harmful to family life and employment practices. We urge that Sunday be kept as a day of pause and an opportunity for family contact.”

This petition is signed by 106 members of St. Luke’s Anglican Church.

I have a second petition, which says:

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

“Please do not let the government be remembered as the group that struck the final blows to the family in Ontario. Two tremendously dangerous events are uncontrolled abortion and shopping allowed on Sunday. Each will, in its way, further erode the family. When the family goes, most of the values on which our society rests will go too. Please do not let that happen.”

This petition is signed by Mr. J. E. Graham, 275 Oakhill Road, Mississauga, Ontario.

Mr. Philip: I have a petition signed by members of St. Andrew’s Anglican church, located at 14 Barkwin Drive in Rexdale, Ontario, M9V 2W1.

“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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercialization of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have another petition from Fonthill, Ontario.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, citizens of Ontario, residing in the region of Niagara, support the intent and recommendations of the all-party committee of the Ontario Legislature and the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and recognizing the need for a common pause day for family nurture;

“We therefore call upon the Premier, David Peterson, and his government to pass provincewide legislation rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and upholding Sunday as our common pause day.”

I have signed both of these petitions.

1710

Mr. Runciman: I have one petition from my riding, the village of Merrickville, the members of the Anglican Church Women. It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, members of the Anglican Church Women, wish to state that we are opposed to the opening of stores for Sunday shopping. We fully believe that Sunday should be a day of relaxation among families.”

It is signed by approximately 30 members of that organization. It is from the Holy Trinity Church in Merrickville.

Miss Martel: It is a pleasure to participate this afternoon. If the Liberals in the corner want to participate as well, we would be more than welcome to supply them with petitions.

The Acting Speaker: And your petition is?

Miss Martel: I have a petition, as my other colleagues have, to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It states, and I would like to read this to the House:

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

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

Mr. Callahan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I refer you to standing order 31(b). The recitals of these petitions are all getting to sound very familiar. I draw to the attention of the Speaker the fact that it must be “a statement of the petitioners.” I would like to know whether this is a statement of the petitioners or whether this is a document that has been drawn up by the people presenting it, and in fact submitting it to this House. If it is, I suggest it is out of order.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Brampton South makes a point which I believe has already been commented on about twice by the Speaker himself. I request that the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) continue as quickly as possible.

Mr. Breaugh: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the member did so intentionally, but certainly there was a great deal of imputing of motives there. A member stood in his place and suggested that a petition was being improperly presented to the assembly. More than that, he implied that a member had deliberately done something that I suppose could best be called tampering with the petition. It may be a small point, and the member may not have meant to do so, but he has left on the record a clear implication that someone has altered a petition being presented in the assembly. That is quite a serious allegation. I hope it was a frivolous interjection and I think he should take the opportunity to withdraw that.

Mr. Callahan: On a point of privilege Madam Speaker: I raised in this House what I suggest I considered to be a legitimate objection, the fact that the petitions being presented are to be in the words of the petitioners, and if in fact they have not put forward those words in the petitions, then they are out of order under that rule.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Madam Speaker, under standing order 31 there are a number of sections, more than 31(b). I know it is hard for the member sometimes to get past the early ones. He will notice that standing order 31(e) indicates, “Members presenting petitions are answerable that they do not contain any improper matter,” and we are requested not to bring in certain kinds of information. For instance, we are not allowed to have mimeographed signatures or duplicated signatures in that fashion; they must be signed.

Therefore, one must presume that if a person affixes his name to the same page upon which the material allegations are listed, that person has understood the matter before him and that the member introducing the information is doing so with the full knowledge of that person who has signed. I suggest to him that this has been done and that he is wrong to suggest that anything other than that has occurred.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not wish to belabour the point, but I do think that a serious allegation has been made. Members will know, because the Speaker throughout the last couple of days has made it very clear, that it is our obligation, when somebody presents us with a petition, to present it to the assembly. That is our obligation as members. The assembly does not debate the matter, but members do have a right to hear what people have said. As a matter of fact, I would say it is a little more than that: It is an obligation to hear the petition.

All that members are doing is presenting petitions which have been given to us by members of the general public. We have been asked by the Speaker to assign our names, and basically that is simply an indication that the sponsoring member does not particularly agree or disagree, though he may, but that it is a legitimate petition. We are presenting this afternoon legitimate petitions to the assembly.

In the course of this, a member has made an allegation that we are doctoring those petitions. That is not true, and since I have been a member here I have never heard a member accuse someone else of doing that, even though there certainly have been a number of petitions presented where obviously the member does not agree with the content or the allegations that are made in the petition. We all understand that when somebody hands you a petition and asks you to present it to the assembly, that is part of our job as members and we do it as a regular course, and through this afternoon members from each of the parties represented here have taken the opportunity during petitions to present that.

Now, it seems to me that that is not very much of an obligation on the part of the government. All it is doing is simply listening to what the general public has to say through the means of a petition. I do not think that is such a gross obligation to put on the part of the government and I would once again ask the member to withdraw his allegations.

Mr. Wildman: I can assure members that every petition that is being presented by this caucus has been signed by individuals who have read the petition and have seen the total petition.

We must accept -- I would hope all members would accept -- the veracity of an individual’s signature, someone from the general public who has signed his or her name. To suggest that somehow those signatures are not true signatures of people who have read this petition, have either prepared it themselves or have read it after it was prepared by someone else, agreed with the statements on it and therefore signed it, is a very serious allegation. I want to assure members that we have many of these petitions yet to present, and every one of them was read and signed by the people whose names are listed.

Mr. Callahan: Madam Speaker, I am not suggesting for one moment that the signatures are not accurate and proper signatures. What I am suggesting is that, as you listen to the petitions being read, there seems to be a rhyme that runs through where some of them are very similar in terms of the recitals, and what I am suggesting --

An hon. member: As were many that you presented over the years.

Mr. Callahan: I accept the statement made by the honourable members that, in fact, in each case these were read over by the people who signed them, because if they were not, then I suggest they are out of order under standing order 31(b) because they are not the statements of the petitioners.

Mr. Epp: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that this discussion has taken enough of the valuable time of the House and that we should get back to the business of the House and deal with the petitions as quickly as possible, because that, apparently, is what the opposition parties want to do: They want to use up as much time of the House as possible. We should get back to the real business, to deal with legislation that we want to deal with, and so l suggest that we get back to the normal business.

The Acting Speaker: A point of order has been raised by the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan). I have dealt with that point of order. With regard to the point of order that was raised by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I would remind all members not to impute motives upon what is said by certain members in this House. I would suggest from what I have heard today that the information should be on the record and that if there are any further comments anyone wishes to make, perhaps we can wait until another time and proceed with respect to the member for Sudbury East with her reading of the petition.

1720

Mr. Farnan: The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) imputed that the purpose of reading the petitions was to waste the time of this House. It is clear that the purpose of the petitions is to allow the voice of the people of Ontario to be heard. If there is a certain repetition in the petitions --

The Acting Speaker: Order. As I have indicated, I would like to say that no member should impute motives upon any other member of the House.

Mr. Farnan: May the member for Waterloo North please withdraw his remarks --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I have indicated that no member should impute something wrong upon a statement made by a member of the House. I did not read that from the statement made by the member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Breaugh: I am just going to bring to your attention, Madam Speaker, standing order 19(d) covering the rules of debate in here. There have been two now, and this is a little unfortunate, because I began by seeking simply a clarification on the remarks made by the member for Brampton South. It is unfortunate that the member for Waterloo North chose to stick his nose into the business as well, but I would remind you that it is fairly clear under standing order 19(d)(8) that one cannot make allegations against another member and, under 9, that one cannot impute false or unavowed motives to another member.

It is fairly clear to me that that has happened here this afternoon. I am quite prepared to let the matter drop for now, but I would like you, Madam Speaker, to take under consideration that this is getting a little more serious than we care to get. All members are doing is exercising their parliamentary obligations. If the government does not like that, that is too bad.

The Acting Speaker: With respect to the member’s understanding of that particular statement made by the member for Brampton South, I did not take that from it, but I will review the Hansard and will come back to you with respect to that.

Miss Martel: Since I have been interrupted by the back bench, which has finally decided to wake up, I am going to begin again, because I am sure most members in the House lost the point of the --

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would you please continue where you left off?

Miss Martel: I am getting right there, Madam Speaker. I have a petition signed:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.”

The Acting Speaker: Order. Will you please continue where you left off in your reading? Do not begin again.

Miss Martel: On a point of information, Madam Speaker: I cannot remember where I left off, because that was such a long time ago. So, begging your pardon, I would certainly like to begin again from the beginning, and I ask for a ruling on that.

Mr. Philip: Go ahead, read it.

Miss Martel: Go again?

The petition states as follows:

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

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas it continued ‘This strain would be imposed particularly on the families of retail employees, many of whom are women, who might then be required to work on Sunday. The committee also believes that wide-open Sunday shopping would have an adverse impact upon common time together for primarily female-led, single-parent families’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family, which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act, to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours, to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

This is signed by 12 members of the riding of Sudbury East, and I have endorsed my signature on this as well.

Mr. McLean: I have my final petition:

“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 Ontario’s municipalities are opposed to the Peterson local option for Sunday shopping, we request that consideration be given to the views of 63 people across this province who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a petition on Sunday shopping that I would like to present, now that both the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) and the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) are in the House.

The signatures are from a number of people, one of whom is Dr. Ted Bounsall, past member for Windsor-Sandwich in the Legislature of Ontario, a great colleague of ours.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.”

Mr. Ballinger: You should add a little colour.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I appreciate that.

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and” --

Interjections.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: “Agreed” was heard from across the way.

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

1730

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

Mrs. Cunningham: I have a number of petitions I would like to present at this point in time. They are addressed 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 majority of Ontarians want family time together and not wide-open Sunday shopping, we request that consideration be given to the views of 55 persons from London who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

I have put my signature to this and I will turn that over to the House.

I have another one:

“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 all-party committee of the Legislature on retail store hours unanimously recommended a common pause day so that families can get together; and

“Whereas the Solicitor General, Joan Smith, signed that committee report but now has failed to live by its recommendations, we request that consideration be given to the views of 56 persons from London who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.

I have signed my name to this and I will turn that over for the records.

I have one last group of petitions here:

“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 Liberal government of David Peterson does not support the principle of a common pause day in Ontario, we request that consideration be given to the views of 50 persons from London who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

I have signed my name to these as well and I will turn them over for the record.

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition from the Fabric Solution fabric shop at 218 Locke Street South in Hamilton. This is signed by members of the staff.

“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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: I have a petition from our North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Europe. Actually, that is not factual. I do have a petition, however:

“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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the first of 17” -- count them -- ”unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government; and

1740

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions’ on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition addressed 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:

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

It is signed by 50 residents of Ontario.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: “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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recom-mendations contained in that cornmittee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, farmilies and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

This is signed by two people in the riding of Essex-Kent.

Ms. Bryden: Madam Speaker, I am presenting to you petitions fiom residents of Metropolitan Toronto who wish to state their opposition to Sunday shopping. They address their petitions to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. They state:

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recom-mendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

This petition is signed by five residents of Metropolitan Toronto, including myself, and I support the petition.

Mr. Swart: I realize that I may be a little out of form presenting petitions on this subject, but somehow or other, we will accomplish it. I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that today I have my glasses so it should not take as long as last time.

1750

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: This is addressed -- I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would stop the interjections --

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: -- by my own members.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for the petition.

Mr. Swart: “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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal -- ”

The members are interrupting again, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: “ -- the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours, to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

That is signed by Sue Wyers of Hanmer, Ontario.

Mr. Ballinger: Hey Mel, you get the big zero from us.

Mr. Callahan: For technical merit, though, you’ve got a 10.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wanted desperately to get this one on the record, because it is the remaining three ladies from the Hamilton Mountain bowling league who did not sign the previous petition -- just to give them credit, Emily Goodall, Bette Coruzzi and Shirley Sartor:

“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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and” --

You will note I am reading it carefully so there is nothing added to the petition, Madam Chairman, so there can be no critique from the member for Brampton South.

As I say, it is signed by the three women from the Hamilton Mountain ladies’ bowling league and I am pleased to add my signature to this petition and forward it to the Clerk of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am just wondering, it being so close to six of the clock, I understand the member has a petition and in case he finds it difficult to read, he might want to wait until tomorrow. It being now six of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

April 18, 1988

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

POVERTY GAME

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

CONSERVATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

WASTE DISPOSAL

LABOUR DISPUTE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DEATH

NUCLEAR SAFETY

EARL FENTON

RESPONSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NUCLEAR SAFETY

AUTOMOBLE INSURANCE

NUCLEAR SAFETY

EARL FENTON

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

SUNSET REVIEW

PURCHASE OF SURPLUS POWER

AGRICULTURAL LAND

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

ABANDONED RAILWAY LINES

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

RETAIL SALES TAX

ONTARIO SHARE AND DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SCHOOL FUNDING

MOBILE HOME INSURANCE

HEURES OUVRABLES / RETAIL STORE HOURS