Hansard Transcript 1988-Apr-20 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Reville: We chatted recently with the administrators of 20 hospitals, covering virtually all of Ontario and not excluding places such as Toronto, Windsor, Ottawa, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury and Cambridge. Basically, we were interested in discovering two things: how many elderly patients are presently in acute care beds waiting in limbo for placement into some kind of institutional care and how were the hospitals doing in terms of their nursing requirements?

The results are alarming. In just 20 hospitals, we discovered 822 people who are occupying acute care beds, who should be in a chronic care facility or a chronic care bed. We found nursing shortages of 222 full-time positions and 40 part-time positions.

Clearly, this is a serious situation which is going to get worse, particularly because of the continuing loss of people from the nursing profession and the continuing ageing of our population. Clearly, the Ministry of Health has got to get cracking before the situation does get worse, bring in integrated homemaker programs all across the province and begin to talk seriously about why nurses do not choose any longer to work the kinds of shifts they used to.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. Pope: I feel compelled to comment on the so-called Temagami wilderness issue, as a member in this Legislative Assembly who resides 200 miles north of that so-called Temagami wilderness.

On January 26 and 27, 1983, there was a two-day seminar held at the Guild Inn in Scarborough. It was attended by representatives of the tourist industry, the commercial fishing industry, the trapping industry, all users -- economic users. As well, represented at that meeting for the entire two days were representatives of the Provincial Parks Council, the World Wildlife Fund, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the Ontario Council of Commercial Fisheries, the National Provincial Parks Association, the Sierra Club and the Algonquin Wildlands League.

This two-day meeting was the culmination of 186 open houses, which 10,000 people attended. Arising out of that meeting was the creation of the Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater wilderness park. On the notes to the creation of that park, on the notes from that meeting, is the compromise that environmental and development groups reached during those two days.

Included in that is the admission that timber directly to the south of the park boundary would be harvested and, second, that the road would be constructed. I ask the government why it is breaching this agreement, this compromise, that was reached five years ago by both conservationists and developers.

DIANA LYNG

Mr. Bossy: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Diana Lyng of Chatham. She is the recipient of the Catholic Student of the Year award from the Ontario Separate School Trustees’ Association. As a former chairman of the Kent County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, it gives me added pride because this is the first time a student from Kent county has won the provincial award.

Diana has demonstrated a strong commitment to the family. She has been active in the community and her church. Last summer she received the Canada Day award for excellence. Diana will study political science at the University of Ottawa in the fall. She hopes to be a page in my old stomping grounds, the House of Commons. Diana also tells me she wants to pursue a career in politics, God forbid.

Again, I congratulate Diana for her commitment and dedication to her studies. She is indeed a worthy recipient of the student-of-the-year award. On behalf of all the members, I am sure, I wish her much success in her future.

PROPOSED ROAD EXTENSION

Ms. Bryden: With regard to the proposal for the Leslie Street extension and the Bayview widening, which was approved by the Metropolitan Toronto council last week, I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) yesterday to declare this proposal a matter of provincial interest under the Planning Act so that the cabinet will have an opportunity to review any decision by the Ontario Municipal Board on the project and will have the final say, including the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who has an opinion that he has expressed on it.

A majority of the deputations at a public meeting on March 30 said the proposal will destroy neighbourhoods, will seriously harm the environment and shows up poorly in a cost-benefit analysis. They also said it is contrary to the Metropolitan official plan, which encourages the development of multiple city centres, not more downtown development. I urge the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and the provincial Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to refuse to provide provincial funding to this project. Instead, they should put their money into improving public transit such as the Sheppard Avenue subway.

IAN MILLAR

Mr. Wiseman: Today I would like proudly to announce to the House that on April 10 of this year, Ian Millar of the town of Perth in the great riding of Lanark-Renfrew became the second Canadian rider to win the prestigious World Cup show-jumping final. His triumph on Big Ben, a 12-year-old Belgian gelding, took place in Sweden at the world’s most important indoor competition. Mr. Millar defeated jumpers from all over the world in this four-day event to win the most coveted indoor title in the sport of show jumping.

Mr. Millar, who lives and trains at his home, the Millarbrooke Equestrian Centre at RR 5 in Perth, is rated the world’s top show jumper. Lanark and Renfrew, and I am sure the people of Ontario, are as proud of Mr. Millar as we, his neighbours, are. I ask everyone to show appreciation for a job well done.

FARM CHEMICALS

Mr. McGuigan: Two years ago, I introduced to this House and to the agricultural community the increasing problem of farm chemical thefts. Thefts of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of chemicals in 1986 and 1987 threatened the existence of the rural warehousing and distribution network, and theft of chemicals also posed a serious threat to the environment.

Subsequent to my statement and with the assistance and co-operation of the then Solicitor General, a group of concerned citizens and representatives of the chemical manufacturing and distribution industry formed Agri Chem Securities.

In November 1987, I reported on the success of the program, which resulted in a reduction in theft. Today I am pleased to report that not only have there been no recorded thefts in this, the 1988 season, but also charges have been laid against a number of individuals, ranging from possession to theft of farm chemicals over $1,000. As well, valuable chemicals stolen in 1987 have been recovered.

I congratulate the Agri Chem Securities group and the solicitors general for their involvement and support. Crime prevention programs do work.

1340

Mr. Speaker: The member for Markham for a minute and 15 seconds.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Cousens: Today, with the announcements from the budget, I am looking forward on behalf of the people of York region to a significant increase in funding for Highway 407. Highway 407 was begun last year with the announcement and the turning of the sod for the first phase. It was $25 million or so that was invested. In order to complete this important thoroughfare, which will go east-west north of Highway 401, we will need something in the order of $650 million.

What I am asking for today, and I am truly hopeful on behalf of the people of York region, is that this government will show its investment in the growth and development of York region by putting the money forward today for at least another starting point for Highway 407 to continue. Highway 407 now begins at Highway 400, running to Highway 427. What we want to see happen now is that it have another starting point at Highway 404, so that the highway is finished, not in 25 years’ time, but in 10 years’ time, so that the people who live there can have some enjoyment from it and use of it while they are still alive.

I think this is something the government has to face up to. I know the member for York Centre (Mr. Sorbara) joins me in asking for more money for Highway 407.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Premier. When the Sunday shopping bills are introduced and dealt with on second reading, and when they go out to a standing committee of the Legislature, would the Premier agree to follow three principles in committee in handling these bills, namely, that the hearing process will be a full, open and fair hearing process?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me refer this to the honourable House leader, who has been chatting with the member opposite on these matters.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside. Let me repeat in this House today what I have communicated to my friends in the New Democratic Party particularly, and that is that we intend to proceed with the committee stage of these bills as we would in all other legislation.

We, or at least I, am going to be guided by, among other things, the traditions of this Legislature and by the advice I remember being very vigorously offered by the former New Democratic Party House leader, Elie Martel, who used very loudly, and I think quite properly, to proclaim the long-standing right of committees of this Legislature to order their own business.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The reason we posed the question to the Premier is that those words, “a full, open, fair and unfettered hearing” process, were uttered by him on July 2, 1985, as a public pronouncement in this House about how hearings on Bill 30, the Education Amendment Act, would be held in this province. What I want to ask the House leader, as a result, is why he will not today say the same principles should be applied to the committee hearings in this House on this important matter around the use of Sundays for work and shopping in Ontario? Why the distinction?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to take the opportunity to remind my friend the member for Scarborough West, who knows only too well what the past practices of this assembly have been in respect of organizing and ordering committee business, that we have a very well established practice whereby committees order their own business.

The government, I repeat, has said we are very anxious to have a lively legislative debate on the substantive questions associated with the legislation in question. We will be very delighted to have public hearings. I fully expect that the committee which will have these bills will proceed in the traditional fashion, guided not only by what I have said but by what people like Elie Martel so eloquently argued for just a few months ago.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Our concern is that the traditions around this place vary between minority government and majority government, and with majority government right now the traditions are no public hearings.

I am asking the government House leader to commit himself to not using his majority in the committee to set the agenda unilaterally, so that there will be an opportunity for all those who want to appear before this committee to give their views either in favour or opposing the Sunday shopping proposals by the government.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to repeat for the benefit of my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside that the government intends to proceed, allowing the committee to order its own business. My memory of the standing committee on social development is that, in the matter of Bill 30, it ordered its own affairs, and that is as it should be.

I just want to add that if this is a new and a democratic party, then surely it will want the right for this legislation to be introduced, to be acknowledged, so that honourable members on all sides in this chamber can get on with their responsibilities, which are to begin a substantive debate on the issues at hand. That, my friends, is surely something the opposition would want to accommodate.

Mr. Speaker: New question. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The House leader should know, because he was --

Mr. Speaker: The question is to whom?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will direct it to the Premier again, who will no doubt redirect it. It is on the same matter.

The House leader should know, because he was intimately involved in the Bill 30 hearings, that continually through that process we were reminded of our commitment and the commitment of the government of the day that we would not be curtailing our hearings in any way. That is why we heard the 900 and some respondents.

During the election, the Premier ran on a very different platform around Sunday shopping from what his present legislation reflects. The people of Ontario who voted for him in very large numbers, we all know too well, all want to be able to have a say as to whether they agree with his change of heart or whether they feel he has not kept himself accountable to them.

I want to ask the Premier -- it is a very simple matter for us on this side -- if he will do what he did on Bill 30, will deal the way he dealt with things on Meech Lake and call openly in this House, before it goes out to committee, for full, open, unfettered hearings. Then we will be happy to give the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) the normal use of this House for his budget this afternoon. Why will the Premier not make that commitment?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the honourable member really wanted to ask that question of the House leader.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Surely my good and reasonable friend the distinguished member for Scarborough West would want me to repeat that we intend to proceed on these matters as we have in the past. We intend there to be a good committee hearing and we intend that the public will have its opportunity. But we intend that the democratic rights and responsibilities of members of this House also be acknowledged, and surely one of the most important and one of the most fundamental rights is the right of the government to propose legislation so that a substantive debate can now begin.

1350

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Just as the Liberal Party, when it was the official opposition, fought hard by using tactics that some parties claimed to be undemocratic to get public hearings on tax bills, we in this party are fighting hard to get fair and full public hearings on these bills. The rules are put in place not to protect the majority but to protect the opposition and the minority in this place.

I would like to ask the government House leader how it is, if these traditions that he is referring to are so solid, that when he dealt with Bill 30 the Premier’s statement and promise was for “full, open, fair and unfettered” committee hearings, which were the guiding principles for the Liberal members of that committee and the orders from the Premier’s office on Bill 30. How is it that commitment could be made, and was made, before the bills were even introduced into the Legislature? Why could he make those promises then when he cannot make those promises on these bills?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I repeat to my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside and, quite frankly, to the acute embarrassment of some of his colleagues who know that the government’s position on this has been clear, consistent and reasonable, I repeat to my friends in the New Democratic Party, if they want legislative debate we will give legislative debate. If they want public hearings, I offer public hearings. But I insist on the right, the democratic right and responsibility of this or any other government, to put the question and put the legislation to this House. I ask my friend the opposition House leader, what does he fear? Why will he not allow that most basic of democratic rights to take place?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I think no one in this province has doubted that the debate has been enjoined. I would like to ask the government House leader very clearly -- because his position is not clear and I wonder why it is not clear -- why he personally would not use the word “full” to me, yesterday and even in the House today? All we are asking him to say is that there be full public hearings, as he said there would be full, public and unfettered hearings for Bill 30 -- he himself, not just the Premier. Why will he not use that word now and solve this problem immediately?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just have to say two things to my friend the member for Scarborough West. It is difficult for me to know, particularly over the last 24 hours, what the position of the New Democratic Party has been on this matter, because it has been as fluid as Lake Erie on a windy day. I am sorry to have to say to my friends that their position has been so changeable, their demands have been so quixotic, that I have not known, quite frankly, where they have stood.

I want to say in conclusion to my friend the member for Scarborough West that in Bill 30 the committee organized --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Robin has left. That’s a sign.

Mr. Mackenzie: He can shout louder than you and can make less sense. He can shout louder than the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We will just wait.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr. Runciman: That is as good an example of arrogance and pomposity as we are ever going to witness in this House.

Mr. Speaker: I recognized the member to ask a question; to which minister?

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Mr. Runciman: To the Minister of Energy. I am hopeful that he is aware that Ontario Hydro has submitted a 5.5 per cent rate increase to the Ontario Energy Board for 1989. The hearings will cost the taxpayers, if last year is any example, in excess of $7 million. Yet the board cannot make a decision that is binding on Ontario Hydro.

The system is unfair both to the people and to Ontario Hydro. What we need is an independent board that can make a decision based on publicly known criteria. Is the minister prepared to make these hearings truly meaningful and introduce a bill this spring making the board’s decisions binding on Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Wong: Ontario Hydro presented its rate increase for fiscal 1989 for 5.5 per cent, on average, covering all customers. The increase, as I understand it at the moment, is based on inflation and facility capital expenditure projections. At the present time, it would appear to us that the fairest way for the government to assess whether this rate increase is proper or not is to let the Ontario Energy Board do the review.

The dollar figure which the honourable member mentioned is small in relation to the $5.5-billion annual budget we are talking about. I think the people and the government of Ontario want to know if the assumptions and the analyses are correct in arriving at this rate increase.

Last, let me say that with the government’s commitment to make amendments to the Power Corporation Act, this is one of the key and fundamental issues that we are addressing. What we decide to do will be announced in due course.

Mr. Runciman: That is tough to swallow. The minister is suggesting that we can spend $7 million and then simply ignore the recommendations. That has been the history in the past.

Two years ago, the select committee on energy recommended rate-setting powers for the Ontario Energy Board. Before that, his own party went on record as wanting more teeth for the board. What does the minister need to know that he does not already know in order to make a decision on this issue, and either move ahead with this legislation, making it binding, or set aside this farcical Ontario Energy Board process?

Hon. Mr. Wong: First of all, I do not agree with the dollar figure of the cost that the honourable member has mentioned. I believe it to be significantly lower.

Second, I would like to point out that I have some statistics here that indicate between 1975 and 1988 inclusive, during the 14-year period that has passed, in 10 of those years the Ontario Energy Board said to Ontario Hydro, “We think the rate increase should be lower.” In nine out of those 10 times, Ontario Hydro’s board of directors concurred.

Mr. Runciman: The reality is that it concurred in a very modest way.

The fact is that the expenditures of the Ontario Energy Board last year were about $3 million, and in Hydro they were in excess of $4 million; over $7 million, if the minister’s arithmetic and calculator are working well over there.

Will the minister at least indicate to us, in line with the recommendations of the select committee and his own party in terms of past history, whether he feels the board should have rate-setting powers? Would he indicate what advantages or disadvantages he sees for that process?

Hon. Mr. Wong: At the present time, the timing is upon us. Ontario Hydro has indicated what its rate structure is going to be. We are in the process of reviewing the Power Corporation Act. That is the sum of what I can tell the honourable member at this point in time.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to ask a question about Sunday shopping, but not to the House leader. If the Premier is answering questions today, I would like to ask him the question.

With respect to the local option for Sunday shopping, many members of municipal councils -- in some cases, the majority of members -- are also business people, in fact, even retail merchants with a direct interest in the issue of retail stores being allowed to open on Sundays. In drafting this ill-conceived legislation, did the Premier’s advisers consider the fact that many municipal councillors would be placed in conflict of interest when called upon to vote on the question of Sunday shopping?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I suggest to my honourable friend that a majority of councillors are probably home owners, or if not that renters, and they have to make decisions on taxes as well. My honourable friend may suggest that puts them in a conflict of interest, but I do not think I accept his line of argument in this particular case.

1400

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I disagree with the Premier. I feel that if a member of council has a retail operation he does have a conflict, and many small councils are composed of retail merchants. Most good councillors in their wisdom will exercise their common sense and abstain from voting. In doing so, they will leave a minority of the members of council to make this decision. My question is, in the first place is this legal and valid, and in the second place is that the type of situation he would condone?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The councillors will govern themselves as they see fit. I think the problem my honourable friend raises is not in fact going to be a real problem across the province. If he wants to stretch his argument, he could say they should not vote on a wide variety of things, such as business improvement plans in some of the communities or other things. I do not think there is going to be a conflict in that regard and I think he can assure his friends of that.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: With 839 municipalities in the province, if some of them opt to go to a referendum this will create an impossible situation. By abdicating their responsibilities as a provincial government and forcing municipal councils to make the decision on the Sunday shopping issue, they have created more problems. As we know, every three years there is a municipal election.

My question to the Premier is, does that mean that every three years the laws on Sunday shopping could be reversed if the newly elected council voted against the existing bylaws on Sunday shopping? In other words, every three years there is a new council. One council votes it in; the next council votes it out. Is that his idea of Peterson’s new Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am having trouble following my honourable friend’s logic or his criticism in this regard. One could make the argument that any government here can change a law that existed in the past. As he well knows, we have changed a number of laws since we became the government here, and if there is a change of government then presumably another government can change those laws. Those things happen from time to time, so there is nothing particularly dramatic about that.

My honourable friend should know that those municipal councillors can now vote on tourist exemptions. He may argue that is a conflict of interest; he may not. I do not know why my honourable friend cannot grapple with the reality of this legislation that allows individual municipalities to take a different approach on this matter.

Is the member prepared to sit in Mount Forest and say you cannot do this in Sault Ste. Marie? Is he saying that the councillors of Sault Ste. Marie all had conflicts of interest when they moved to open up? Is he saying that the councillors in Point Edward, in the riding of his esteemed interim leader, had conflicts of interest when they moved to open up in Point Edward?

I think my honourable friend, thoughtful man that he is, after he reads this legislation and really understands its full import, will find that his fears have been dramatically magnified in his own mind. My guess is, being the sensible fellow that he is, he will stand up and support us like his seatmate who is absent today.

HOME CARE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services about the integrated homemaker program; in particular, some cases in Sault Ste. Marie.

Kathy MacDonald is 27 years old and has multiple sclerosis. She never knows from one day to the next how well she will be. Kathy recently was cut back to four hours per week from seven hours per week. She says that it takes most of that time just for her homemaker to do her laundry at the laundromat.

Meanwhile, Albert Amendola is 74 and lives at home with his wife, Mary. He has arthritis and she has had a quadruple heart bypass. Albert applied for homemaking services recently, and when they did not get a response they were told that the program has run out of money in the Sault.

Can the minister tell these concerned citizens, who need home care services, why he is cutting back those services and why he is restricting access to that service that is needed by so many people across this province?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Rather than cutting back the service, a considerable amount of money is being and has been added to the service. I believe I pointed out to one of the members’ colleagues that the total budget allocated to the entire program was to be $60 million. We are already spending $58 million on less than half the program. That is the extent to which we are putting more money into those areas that have the program at the present time.

I also point out to the honourable member that the integrated homemaker program is an add-on to the existing system. There continues to be a homemaker program associated with the Ministry of Health home care program; there continues to be a homemaker program associated with needs-tested programs in my ministry. Integrated homemaker is a third level of assistance.

In response to the fact that there are people waiting to get the service, certainly there are; and yes, there is a cap on it, it is not wide open. There is a finite amount of resources allocated to this program, as there is to every other program that I offer, except those which are specifically mandated under children’s aid societies and under income assistance. All other programs have caps on them.

Mr. Allen: Two weeks ago the minister told me that he would be making an announcement in two or three days with respect to the crisis in the delivery of homemaker services; nothing happened. Last Friday he had an urgent meeting with the workers in the field; still no announcement. For four weeks in the Sault there has been a home care strike, caused by inadequate funding, which has disrupted home care delivery services; still no action. In Toronto, talks with 400 homemakers have almost broken down. One can retell the stories that my colleague has given to the House in area after area across this province.

On top of all this, the minister is sitting on an interministerial report dealing with the multiple and grave problems in homemaker services. Is the minister going to do something about the growing chaos in the delivery of homemaker services, or is he in the process of backing off from the commitments he and his Premier (Mr. Peterson) have made so often and so greatly to this province, to the seniors and the disabled in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: This government has clearly indicated that it plans to put and is in the process of putting into place in the communities across this province alternative supports to the elderly, the frail elderly in particular, and to the disabled so that they can stay in their own homes, in their own communities, as opposed to having to go into an institutional setting when it is not their desire or in their best interest. That is a commitment of the government. That is in place now.

I just indicated to the member’s colleague that by introducing the integrated homemaker program
-- which sat on the shelf of the previous government for six years, unintroduced; we have introduced it -- one of the things that we have learned is that the demand for service is greater than we had anticipated. That is something you learn only by introducing it. We are probably going to learn it by introducing other programs as well.

I point out to the member that in the Sault the service continues to be put into place. Any emergency admissions are being handled. The nursing supervisors who are responsible for doing the assessment are not doing the regular line of assessment, I am aware of that fact; but the service --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. As the minister is well aware, municipalities such as Halton, Peel, Metropolitan Toronto and Durham are looking frantically for landfill sites. Recently Metropolitan Toronto has indicated it is seeking three possible sites in my own riding: in the town of Newcastle, two along the shores of Lake Ontario, if you can believe it, one in the Newtonville area. Of course, in those landfill sites they are going to be putting in sewer sludge, which is at present going into the Brock landfill site, which I have not heard much about from the member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner). In other words, when Metro flushes, we are going to be getting it out in Durham East.

I say to the minister, when are he and the Liberal administration going to get their act together and come up with a comprehensive policy concerning landfill sites, or is this going to be another Sunday shopping option for the municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Several questions come into that, but I will try to zero in on what I believe is the member’s very legitimate main question.

First of all, as the member would know, historically, when his government was in power, it appropriately placed the responsibility for waste management in the hands of the municipalities. However, as he would know, the provincial government plays a regulatory role, and I think that is a significant role to play.

1410

We try to work as much as possible with municipalities across the province to assist them in meeting their obligations. For instance, in promoting recycling across Ontario, I believe some 75 or more municipalities now are involved in recycling so that they can overcome some of the problems the member mentions.

We do provide some technical advice to people when they ask us for that kind of advice, but the main role we have is a regulatory role to ensure that whatever proposal is put forward for the disposal of waste or the management of waste is acceptable environmentally. I want to assure the member that we would want to look at any proposals which come forward in that light.

Mr. Cureatz: Once again, the minister has not told us a thing about the initiatives his administration should be taking in regard to landfill sites for municipalities across Ontario. I would like to ask a very simple question. We are looking for a yes or no answer. It is so simple even a Liberal back-bencher would be able to answer it. As a matter of fact, it is even simpler than that. Even the member for Mississauga (Mr. Mahoney) over there would be able to answer it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We know in this House that sometimes questions take a while, and if they are fairly long then sometimes we get a long answer. I suggest the member try a brief supplementary. We may get a brief answer.

Mr. Cureatz: Yes or no, is it not true the minister is happy that Metro Toronto is looking at an opposition member’s riding in which to put a major landfill site? If the answer is anything other than yes, the minister is misleading me in this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am waiting to see what the response is.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not know whether the member wants to be escorted today, because I think those conditional words he used are usually a gateway out of the House, but I will try to answer the question of the member for Durham West.

Mr. Cureatz: Durham East.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Sorry, Durham East. The member for Durham West has asked me a number of questions in the House on this subject.

What I want to indicate to the member is that the initiative is to be taken by Metropolitan Toronto to determine where it would seek its particular site. I think that is the municipality to which the member is referring. It seems to me there were four or five sites they had mentioned they were looking at. Two of them are, I think, in Scarborough, and three of them are to the east of Metropolitan Toronto’s boundaries. I do not think, if they are looking at all of these properties, they are looking in a particular riding of any kind.

It is most important that municipalities make a choice based on what is environmentally the most desirable site rather than making it on any other basis. The member would know, for instance, that there are people in the Niagara region who would like me to simply say on a political basis that there should be no consideration whatsoever of the Ontario Waste Management Corp. site. I said on that occasion, of course, that should be subject to the ruling of the consolidated board and the best environmental decision made.

I want to assure the member that as far as I am concerned, what is most significant is whether it is environmentally –

Mr. Speaker: Order.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Beer: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As he knows, the population of York region continues to grow at a great rate, standing now at over 400,000, and this extensive population growth has put many strains on the GO Transit bus and train service available to the region. I am sure the minister is also aware that travel from communities, particularly in the north -- Newmarket, Aurora, East Gwillimbury and Georgina -- is difficult in going to the southern ends of the region and into Metropolitan Toronto.

Is the minister prepared to tell us when the GO service in York region will be expanded?

Mr. Ferraro: After Guelph.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member for Guelph says, “After Guelph;” but that is his answer.

We are very much aware of the growth that is taking place in York region and the other regions around Metropolitan Toronto. We are very conscious of the needs of rapid transit and highway requirements within the regions. The member would be well aware of our efforts with respect to the ongoing project of Highway 404 and the commencement, finally, of Highway 407 last July.

He would also be aware that because of the government’s recognition of the massive needs required around the greater Toronto area, including the region of York, the government established a transit review authority some time ago to look at those needs. I might say it is the first time in more than 20 years that the province has undertaken this kind of a review. That report is virtually complete. It is before me, and we will be making announcements in the fairly near future.

Mr. Beer: By way of supplementary, the minister is also aware that many of the people in the region and moving into the region, are seniors and students. These people would like to be able to travel to Toronto at a reasonable cost but are currently unable to do so or to take advantage of the special student and senior discounts offered by the Toronto Transit Commission.

Can the minister tell the House what steps are being taken to open up the availability of these discounts to students and seniors of neighbouring communities, thereby allowing them to travel within Metro Toronto’s boundaries at the same reduced rate that Metro’s population of students and seniors do today?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The question the member raises is a very valid one and one we have viewed with some concern. It is one of the reasons we initiated this study to begin with. The movement of the cross-boundary traffic generated by commuters has been an ongoing problem, one we felt it was necessary to address. We are attempting to break down those artificial political boundaries between the various regions so we can implement what the member is seeking.

I think the direction we are going is best illustrated by the announcement of the GO Transit-TTC Twin Pass which we initiated earlier this year, on February 1. We are hoping to gain the co-operation of all the transit properties and operators within the region to effect the best possible transit within the regions and across those boundaries.

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Solicitor General, who has a responsibility for funding assistance to rape crisis centres in this province. The minister may not be aware that the volunteer workers of a majority of the rape crisis centres across the province have withdrawn all education and support services this week to protest the grossly inadequate provincial funding provided to these very important centres serving women assault victims. I may say they are maintaining emergency service for the victims.

Is the minister aware that several centres have announced they will be forced to close permanently or drastically cut services in the next two months if the funding formula is not extended to cover paid staff and an adequate budget for other operating costs? What does she plan to do to give the centres the budgetary stability they need to continue to provide caring and compassionate service to assaulted women in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am sure the member will be very pleased to know my ministry is taking a very active and interested role in the matter of sexual assault of women and the rape centres that address these problems. We recognize the tremendous work done by volunteers in these centres.

There has been a formula devised over past years, in which the funding given by the province was directed to certain nonsalaried items. This was the formula that had been worked out. In the process of doing this, we gave certain amounts of money which have been dramatically increased over the last few years and are up again 13 per cent this year. I am more than happy to meet with them to discuss the type of formula. I would like to be able to produce that limited amount of money. In fact, I have a meeting set with them for next week and plan to discuss these matters with them.

1420

Ms. Bryden: I understand the government plans to spend $600,000 on a media campaign in June to make the public aware of the seriousness of the crime of sexual assault. If the government really thinks it is so serious, why does it continue to starve the centres or offer a meagre 13 per cent increase over completely inadequate funding that did not cover staff? Why is it not ready to sit down and spend a large portion of that $600,000 on making the centres able to care for the women who are assaulted?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I think everybody here would agree that in the matter of rape and all forms of sexual assault, public attitude is the most important thing that needs to be changed, and this is the reason for a good deal of money being put forward to address this. I spoke to this in London last week. Public attitude was agreed by the people who attended that conference to be one of the most important aspects, be it the attitude of the general person with those who surround them in their lives, the attitude of those who read about it in the newspapers or the attitude of the police involved in reinforcing the law.

All of these attitudes are very important. I remind the member that surely one of the most important things that has happened out of the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program against drinking and driving is a change of attitude in people, in which it is no longer considered either smart or practical to drive when you have been drinking. This is an example of money spent to change public attitudes in a very useful way.

Mr. Jackson: My question as well is to the Solicitor General. According to the Kingston Whig-Standard of March 31, the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Ministry of Community and Social Services will be giving $85,000 to a Kingston treatment clinic for violent sex offenders. At the same time, the Kingston sexual assault crisis intervention centre in that same city of Kingston asked her ministry for funds it badly needed to continue, and she only gave them $12,730.

Can the minister tell the women and children of this province why, in Kingston, her government is spending six times as much on rapists as it is on their victims? How can she defend such a funding record?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, we can always compare programs across different areas. I think the member would surely agree that addressing the treatment of sex offenders is an important one. These are people we have in our care by reason of the crimes they committed. I think anybody would agree that they should be looked to; in many cases, in time to come they will be released back to society. I remind the member that one of the strong recommendations of the Pepino task force was that proper treatment should be given to these people while they are incarcerated, in order that they may not be a danger to society when they come out.

If the member wishes to ask at another time any further questions about those programs, I am sure the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) would be happy to answer them. On the other hand, as far as the treatment centre in Kingston is concerned, I do note their request is down and I am more than happy to discuss it with them when we meet on Monday or at any other time they wish to discuss it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member might like to ask a supplementary for some further information.

Mr. Jackson: The minister has indicated that there is a need for attitudes to change in this province. I submit it is her attitude that needs to change in terms of her commitment to rape crisis centres. More important, when members of her cabinet were muttering to themselves about the 13 per cent increase, saying they thought that was pretty good, that is not the point. The fact is we are not seeing the minister’s commitment to the rape crisis centres in Ontario. In Kingston, the rapists are getting up to $100,000 and we are not adequately funding the only intervention line in that city. They have been forced to cut back their services to one single line in that community.

There are 20 centres in this province. Eight centres this week are providing emergency services only. The Kenora and Oshawa centres say that without more funding they will have to stop operations.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Jackson: I am putting this in the form of a question, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

The Sault Ste. Marie centre has already closed. There is a 50 per cent increase in the demand for this service. When is the government going to start adequately funding rape crisis centres?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the question. Did the minister hear it?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Burlington should know on this, our budget day, we cannot give all money to everything that is a deserving cause. We certainly are prepared to continue to increase the grants to these centres. The member mentions Kenora, which is receiving 26 per cent more than last year.

I remind the member and other members that these centres exist largely by virtue of the many volunteers who work within the communities, and some of them indeed have trouble continuing in their operations because of the difficulties of getting volunteers. Once again, we need to raise the profile of the problem so that people will volunteer and these centres will be able to provide the best possible service to the communities.

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. Cordiano: I have a question of the Minister of Government Services. Given the announcement he made recently on surplus government land, and in respect to the government’s intent to develop those lands, can you guarantee that the residents of my riding located at Keele and Falstaff will be consulted and invited to participate in any decisions concerning the development of those lands?

Hon. Mr. Patten: Yes, I will guarantee that the citizens in the surrounding area will be invited to be part of the process. It is a normal part of the planning process.

The member should be aware that not only will they be approached, but we would also entertain any possibility of some joint development with appropriate groups in the community.

He should also be aware that the approval process is a local municipality one; that when a proposal has been developed after full consultation this is put before the town council or the city council for consideration, and then there is further consultation with interested community groups for reaction.

Mr. Cordiano: I would like the minister to reassure the residents of the community that it is indeed the intention of the government to develop the land in question in a manner that is both sensitive to and compatible with the neighbourhood, ensuring that the quality of life that residents there have come to know and expect will be maintained.

Hon. Mr. Patten: I think we have learned a great deal from some of the mistakes that have been made in the past around some massive social housing programs, and that that is not the best way to go. In our joint statements last week, the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and myself indicated our strong intention that we would be talking about mixed development, we would be talking about something appropriate to the character of the local community, and that we would be very much guided by the people of that community in terms of the nature of that particular development so that it is something the citizens of that community will feel proud of.

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It is not a new question; it is one that has been raised many times before. It concerns the radioactive soil in McClure Crescent in Scarborough. Last June the minister said a decision about what to do with that soil would be made last fall. It appears now that the former residents have almost won their battle for damage awards as a result of the radioactive soil. My concern is for the present residents. Can the minister tell us when the government is going to remove the toxic soil from McClure Crescent?

1430

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member would be aware, the federal government has for some period of time now been investigating the possibility of determining a specific site for radioactive waste and we have, as a Ministry of the Environment, been attempting to work with them in this regard.

In other words, radioactive waste comes under the sole jurisdiction of the federal government and under the Atomic Energy Control Board here in Canada. Therefore, we are hopeful that with the exhaustive search they have been undertaking and with the extensive work they have been doing in this regard, they will come up with a site in the reasonably near future in order that the soil which is on the specific site at the present time may be moved to that particular site.

Mrs. Grier: Last June it was in the fall. Now it is in the “reasonably near future.” Today the minister chooses to place the responsibility with the federal government; on other occasions it has been flipped between various ministers of this government. Last month I wrote to the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) and the Minister of the Environment and asked each of them how they could condone having tenants in those houses if they were not going to remove the soil quickly, and preferably at once. I would like to hear from the Minister of the Environment how he can possibly condone other ministers in this government renting out those houses when he obviously has no prospect of removing that soil in the very near future?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member would know, first of all, that I do not have control over the federal government or its actions. It is an independent level of government, so I cannot speak for the speed at which it is moving in finding a site. I have to believe it is sincere in wanting to find a site for that. I have no reason to believe it is not.

In a letter to me, the member did suggest that the soil could be moved to the provincial constituency of Bruce. Whether Norma Peterson, the NDP candidate in Bruce, would be pleased to see it moved there, I do not know, because no doubt it is the old problem that I mentioned. I know the member has that problem, as I do; that is, while it is easy to identify a specific problem and a specific contaminant that one would like to see moved, finding out where to move it and finding a receptive audience in that specific area is difficult.

I do not think the member has suggested that it be moved to the Reesor Road site, because I am certain the people there do not want it, as the people of Kincardine may not. The member would also recognize that the site to which she is referring is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and therefore if the federal government is prepared to offer any site --

Mr. Speaker: Therefore, that completes that question and response.

ABANDONED RAILWAY LINES

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. I have asked the minister personally and I have also contacted his appointment secretary to see if he would come down to view the abandoned railroad line known as the Marmora subdivision. My staff have also called his staff in the same regard. Will the minister come down and view that abandoned railroad line and meet with the people who are interested in it becoming a recreation trail?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We certainly have not been unwilling to meet with people on these kinds of issues, but there are abandoned railway lines in many parts of Ontario and there are many people who would suggest that the government should take the responsibility and take them over for various purposes.

It has been against the plan of the government to do just that. We are asking municipalities and those people who want to use it for any kind of recreation involvement to do it on their own and then see if we can give them some kind of help relating to the particular initiative. This is a very difficult situation where not all people are in favour of having skidoo trails and/or other uses in areas that impact on their personal involvement.

Yes, I am quite willing, if the member would like to have his people come to meet with us on it, but he must understand that it is not a priority of ours to be acquiring abandoned railway lines for those kinds of purposes.

Mr. Pollock: I personally asked the minister to come down to see the abandoned railroad line for himself. It goes through a lot of rough terrain, and I am sure once he has seen it he will say it lends itself to a recreation trail.

His colleague, who was the former Minister of Tourism and Recreation, commissioned a $30,000 study for that railroad line, so I think it is almost imperative that the minister come down and at least meet with the people. After all, he has already spent $30,000 on a study. Why would he not come down and actually meet with those people?

Mr. Speaker: I think the member has placed his question.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I guess the member has not made it interesting enough for me to come down. If he would make some kind of offer other than just to run in and look and leave, I would be more encouraged to come. If he has some kind of way to fill out my day where I might do something other than look at that site, I am very much prepared to reconsider. In keeping with the interest of the Ministry of Natural Resources in providing the kind of recreation and the kind of park system whereby people now can avail themselves of the best park system in the world, I must say asking us to take on other responsibilities is quite difficult at this time.

I am still trying to unravel the terrible situation that was left by the former minister, who said he had agreement by all the users, which was not the case. He took them into a little room, browbeat them and acted as though he had a commitment, when in reality he did not have a commitment. So here I am, attempting to solve all these problems in the parks across the province.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: But I shall look, just because the member asked me in such a nice way.

Mr. Speaker: Good. New question, the member for Ottawa South.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. McGuinty: I have a thoughtful question for the Minister of the Environment. Packaging from consumer products is a major component of the waste stream of all municipalities of Ontario. Plastic packaging, in particular, has been shown to be a health hazard to birds, animals and sea life, as well as being almost impossible to dispose of safely. When put in landfill sites, plastics last virtually for ever. When incinerated, harmful emissions are forthcoming.

My question for the minister is, what is the government doing to reduce the amount of excess packaging being produced in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The first and foremost initiative we are taking, which I know the member would be enthusiastic about, is that of recycling a number of products in Ontario to reduce it. As we proceed along the direction of the curbside recycling, we will see more and more of those products. In fact, now there are markets opening up for recycled products of a plastic nature as well as of another nature. That is one initiative that can be helpful, but we are also working with other jurisdictions to ensure that unnecessary packaging is not utilized.

As the member knows, the primary responsibility in this regard is with the federal jurisdiction because it deals with the entire country of Canada, and it is difficult to have different packaging laws in each of the provinces. Certainly, it is not outside the realm of possibility. I think the new initiative the member will see, as we get further into 1988 and 1989, in a number of provinces, not just our province --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: --is elimination of certain kinds of packaging, reduction in other kinds of packaging and recycling of certain kinds of packaging.

Mr. McGuinty: Biodegradable packaging is now required in 11 states of the United States and in Italy, and Quebec is considering a similar law. In addition, the regional municipality of Durham recently called for the use of biodegradable garbage bags, for which it is to be commended.

1440

Is the minister aware that we have the opportunity to create thousands of new jobs and create a viable industry here in Ontario, producing biodegradable packaging? Could the minister tell us what the government is doing to help municipalities promote innovative waste reduction programs?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We consult on an ongoing basis with the various municipalities around the province to make those kind of suggestions. We have our technology transfer conference in December of each year, where items of this kind can be discussed. We have waste management seminars that take place. They are very helpful in that regard.

The member makes reference to the work the member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner) has done, working along with her council, in dealing with biodegradable bags. We also have the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham), who has made a number of suggestions in this regard.

Once again, I think the member will see us moving in that direction, because the suggestions he makes are going to be valuable in terms of the amount of material that is going into landfill sites and will reduce it. In addition to that, I think the member would be assured that it eliminates some of the problems people contemplate when they see the possibility of an incinerator being constructed.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the honourable member would like to take a little rest. I will recognize the member for Sudbury East with a new question.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Miss Martel: In the short time I have, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. It concerns a very disturbing situation occurring in asbestos removal sites in the province. The problem is that workers removing asbestos are not being trained on how to use their equipment properly, nor is their equipment being checked to ensure that they are not going to suffer from asbestosis in the future.

In our case in particular, the gentleman who worked for this company for seven years removing asbestos recently went on a course sponsored by a firm which inspects removal sites. He took his respirator, which he has worked with for five solid years, and discovered to his horror that it was indeed defective and that the respirator, which is supposed to be checked every single day, had not been for five years.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Miss Martel: I want to ask the minister, in the light of this really horrifying situation, what his ministry intends to do to enforce the regulations present under the Occupational Health and Safety Act so that workers in this province are protected.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I recall the other day, at the end of question period, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) said, “That is a very long question and I hope it would be asked again,” so he could provide an answer. I will try to answer as much of the member for Sudbury East’s question as I can today. Obviously, I cannot respond to the specific details of the case she brings up.

The member will know that about a year and a half ago the Ministry of Labour passed very extensive new regulations to ensure that asbestos within the province was removed in a safe way so as not to endanger the health of workers. Those regulations are some of the most stringent right across North America. I am satisfied that those regulations will deal with all situations within the province where asbestos is found and is to be removed.

If there is a specific instance where a specific individual was the victim -- and indeed not having a respirator that works would be a case of victimization -- I would be glad to tell the member for Sudbury East I will look into that specific situation.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a short petition on Sunday shopping from Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Interjections.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am surprised the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) is leaving, since he has housing responsibilities in that area.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the member that this is the time for petitions. Would you place your petition?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I could not help hearing an interjection. I will try to ignore them.

The petition 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:

“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.”

I presume these members from Etobicoke-Lakeshore would all like to come to public hearings at the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: I remind all members that I have called for petitions. In case there are petitions, I am sure you all want to hear them instead of having private conversations.

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition addressed “To the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario” and it bears 215 names. It is from St. Brides Church, an Anglican Church on Clarkson Road in Mississauga. My signature is included. It is in opposition to Sunday shopping.

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 12 residents of Etobicoke-Rexdale, 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:

“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.”

I am affixing my name thereto.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

Mr. Runciman: I have a petition from approximately 160 residents of the Lyndhurst area.

“To the Lieutenant Governor in Council and to the attention of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître).’’ It is asking the minister to consider the establishment of a Province of Ontario Savings Office branch in the village of Lyndhurst to fill any vacancy left by the closure of the chartered bank there several months ago.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition 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 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

“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;

“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.”

It is signed by approximately 15 people in my riding.

1450

Mr. Pope: I have a petition from the Islington Evangel Centre, Rexdale, which I have signed. 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:

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads 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 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

“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.”

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mrs. Marland: This petition does not have anything to do with Sunday shopping. It was sent to me by the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, 41 George Street South, Suite 303, Brampton, Ontario. They have enclosed a portion of 1,200 petitions from the concerned teachers in the Dufferin-Peel unit of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association regarding the lack of capital funding by the provincial government. The petition in part reads:

“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 its 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.”

I submit that petition to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Reville: 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 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

There are eight petitioners who have affixed their signature to this petition, and I have endorsed my name thereon.

Mr. Mackenzie: 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:

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed with the legislation it has announced, but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario,

“Because, despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a ‘local option’ for municipalities, and therefore dumps responsibility for the regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation ‘was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres,’ but plans none the less to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region, and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more -- and not less -- difficult to enforce; and

1500

“Because the government’s stated intention is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour with regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment, because it provides them only with a right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by officials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weighs heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

“Because even in sectors where workers have a long history of strong trade union representation, disputes over whether individual and/or company actions are ‘reasonable’ are notoriously difficult to resolve in favour of workers where it must be shown that the employer has not acted reasonably; and

“Because the time necessary for the investigation, mediation and, if necessary, refereeing of a refusal of a Sunday work assignment will be a considerable deterrent to workers seeking to exercise this so-called right of refusal; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

Obviously signed by two workers who know what the act is all about, and I affix my signature to it.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, you will be glad of a little diversion and to hear about another subject with my first petition. This is addressed to the provincial government of Ontario and reads as follows:

“Whereas our hospitals need funds in order to serve all the public better; they need more beds, equipment and space; and

“Whereas St. Catharines and Thorold councils are contemplating adding to our property taxes for the next 10 years, which we object to, as there are so many on fixed incomes, low incomes and many unemployed;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario to divert funds from Wintario and other provincial and national lotteries for capital and operating expenses of our hospitals.”

This is signed by 39 people, the majority of whom live in the historic hamlet of Beaver Dams in the city of Thorold. I have signed this petition and will send it to the table.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Swart: To get back to the subject which is of so much concern in this province, the opposition to Sunday shopping, I have a petition which reads:

“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

This is signed by four people, all of whom are from the Toronto area. I shall sign this and then send it with a page to the table.

Ms. Bryden: I am pleased to participate in the democratic process of bringing petitions from residents of the province to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature. I have the honour to present today a petition in opposition to extending Sunday shopping. I have eight petitioners who 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

1510

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

I support this resolution and am pleased to sign it.

Mr. Pouliot: I have a petition signed by 11 very distinguished residents of Ontario who are also parishioners at the Olivet United Church. The Speaker might be aware that the Olivet United Church parish is under the spiritual leadership of the Rev. Charles Beaton and the Rev. Lloyd Stapleton. The petition reads as follows:

“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.”

I have endorsed the petition.

Mr. Farnan: I have a petition signed by 19 citizens, parishioners of the Melrose United Church of Hamilton. 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... government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the...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 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 government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Continue on please.

Mr. Farnan: It is extremely difficult when one is participating in the House proceedings, when one is interrupted so rudely by the government.

The Deputy Speaker: Continue your petition please.

Mr. Farnan: I am anxious that the voice of the people of this parish is heard by the government, but obviously it does not want to listen.

The Deputy Speaker: Let us hear their voice.

Mr. Farnan: “We urge the government” -- and now it is listening -- “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 adding my name to the citizens of Melrose United Church on their petition against the local option for Sunday shopping.

1520

Mr. Charlton: 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:

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to, and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment, because it provides them only with a right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by officials of the employment standards branch who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weighs heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

This petition is signed by two residents of the city of Toronto, and I have added my name to the petition.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Callahan: I have a very important petition that perhaps will take the monotony out of the filibuster going on on the other side. 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:

“As concerned teachers in the Dufferin-Peel unit of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, we believe that 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 its 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.”

This petition was signed by a large number of people, and it also has my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to join the member for Brampton South in participating in the democratic process and representing our citizens in presenting petitions on issues of concern to the people of Ontario.

I have a petition here signed by 53 members of the congregation of Westside Baptist who are concerned about the issue of Sunday working. The petition 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 report also said” -- we are going to have to change that.

Mr. Black: You can’t change it.

Mr. Brown: You can’t change it

Mr. Morin-Strom: “Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario” --

Mr. Mackenzie: He just lost his place. What are you talking about?

Mr. Morin-Strom: I do not want to repeat the same thing. Do you want me to start repeating the whole thing over and over or do you want me to get on with it?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please continue.

Mr. Morin-Strom: “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. Black: Sault Ste. Marie?

Mr. Morin-Strom: What about Sault Ste. Marie?

Mr. Black: Does it have Sunday shopping?

The Deputy Speaker: Please read the petition.

Mr. Morin-Strom: “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” --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Read the petition, please.

Mr. Morin-Strom: “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 pleased to have added my name to this petition and hope that the government will act a bit more judiciously on this matter in the future.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Allen: Once more, as a slight change of pace, I have a petition 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 my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference; and

“Whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practice their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

I have signed that petition and send it, with 66 signatures, to the table of the clerk.

I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, and before I read this into the record, perhaps you would take the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan), who has now departed, and instruct him on the proper meaning of the word “filibuster.” This is not a filibuster; this is a reading of petitions from Her Majesty’s loyal subjects on matters that gravely concern them. In no way can this be considered a filibuster.

The Deputy Speaker: Are you going to read the petition?

1530

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Allen: The petition is from 30 people who live in the westerly reaches of the Metropolitan area, who petition the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly 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.”

As I say, this is signed by 30 persons, and I have affixed my signature to it and I send it to the Clerk’s table.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Carrothers: “To 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 my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

“And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

That is signed by 75 individuals.

HEURES OUVRABLES / RETAIL STORE HOURS

M. Philip: Monsieur le Président, cela me fait plaisir de présenter une pétition contre l’ouverture des magasins le dimanche.

“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:

It is signed by members of Islington Evangel Centre, which is on Albion Road at Martin Grove in the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale, and I have signed the petition in agreement with my constituents.

Miss Martel: I have a petition signed by my staff members, who do not believe this government is choosing the right approach at this point in time as it concerns Sunday shopping. They are very much against the government’s stated intentions in this regard, so they beg leave to petition the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation concerning 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

It is a pleasure for me to endorse this petition.

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 11 residents of Hamilton, including three distinguished clergy.

Mr. Philip: Who are the clergy then?

Mr. Wildman: Father John Ivarichi, Father Peter Tomaino and Rev. Edward Koroway.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not necessary to read the names of the people who have signed it.

Mr. Wildman: “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 people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have affixed my name to that petition.

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:

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

I have a further 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 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

1540

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

Mr. Reville: 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 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 government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

Mr. Mackenzie: 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 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

I am pleased to say this is signed by six residents of the city of Toronto.

Mr. Swart: 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:

“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

1550

This is signed by two Ontario residents, one from Chelmsford and the other from Hanmer. I have signed this petition and will send it to the table.

Ms. Bryden: l am proud to present the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario a petition from two residents of the province who are exercising their right to bring to the attention of the House their concerns about the proposed local-option Sunday shopping law which the government has indicated it intends to bring in. It is no-option local option.

Mr. Speaker: The member has the right to present the petition, not debate it herself.

Ms. Bryden: The petitioners beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation ‘was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres,’ but plans none the less to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more -- and not less -- difficult to enforce; and

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment, because it provides them only with a right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary refereed by officials of the employment standards branch who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weighs heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

“Because even in sectors where workers have a long history of strong trade union representation, disputes over whether individual and or company actions are ‘reasonable’ are notoriously difficult to resolve in favour of workers where it must be shown that the employer has not acted reasonably; and

I support this petition.

Mr. Pouliot: I have a petition signed by 15 distinguished residents of Ontario who are also parishioners of the Melrose United Church under the spiritual leadership of Rev. Peter Wyatt.

I realize that time is of the essence so suffice it to mention that they wish to petition the government of Ontario against local option for Sunday shopping.

Mr. Charlton: 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 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

1600

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

I will add my name to this petition.

BUDGET

Hon. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As you know, 13 days ago I informed the House of my expectation to present the 1988 budget to the House on this day. The formal notice of motion is in your Orders and Notices, and I would ask unanimous consent that we end this order of business, as is customary, and give me an opportunity to present the 1988 budget.

Mr. Speaker: The members of the House have heard the request of the Treasurer. Is there unanimous consent?

Negatived.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since I have the responsibility for the confidentiality of the budget --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order? What’s going on?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: This is a point of order; I am on a point of order. Since I have that responsibility
--

Some hon. members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: A new point of order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Since I have that responsibility, I have no alternative but to use standing order 35(d) and hereby table the budget in the House. Copies are available to all members. Those members of the press, political observers and people from the business community who are examining the budget at the present time will be let out of their lockup, and we can proceed with the business of the House as you otherwise order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We will continue with the previous order of business.

PETITIONS (CONTINUED)

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Charlton: I have a petition signed by 13 residents of Etobicoke:

“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:

I have added my name to this petition.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition from 15 residents from various communities across Ontario expressing concerns about Sunday opening legislation. 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:

I have endorsed this petition and submit it for the consideration of this government.

Mr. Speaker: There seems to be a little confusion in the House. The budgets are being distributed and that probably is creating a little commotion, but there is also other commotion and noise. I wonder if the private conversations could be kept down.

Mr. Farnan: I have here a petition signed by five residents of Ontario. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

“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 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

1610

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

I have attached my name to this petition and l am handing it to the page.

Mr. Allen: I have here in my hand a petition from St. Margaret’s Anglican Church of Hamilton West with 54 names attached to it.

“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;

“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 certainly lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

I have affixed my name to this petition and send it to the Clerk’s table.

Mr. Philip: I have a petition signed by parishioners of St. Andrew’s Roman Catholic Church in Rexdale, part of the riding l represent.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and members of 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

“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.”

It is signed, as I said, by members of St. Andrews parish in Rexdale and I have also signed it. These people are quite willing to appear before a committee of the Legislature, if the Liberal government would allow them to.

Mr. Reville: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There appears to be some odour other than the ordinary emissions in the chamber at the moment. I wonder if the Speaker would care to comment.

The Deputy Speaker: It is being investigated and we may continue until we get orders to the contrary.

Miss Martel: I have two short petitions which I would like to present at this time to the House.

The first is signed by 12 residents of Etobicoke, Ontario 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:

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder if during the time the problem is being investigated we might forgo the presence of the pages and the use of their service for their security.

The Deputy Speaker: The pages will please take their leave.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There appears to be some question as to whether the chamber is safe at the moment. Might we adjourn for 10 minutes and then resume when we have some idea of what is happening?

The Deputy Speaker: We shall adjourn for 10 minutes until we can get some answer to this.

The House recessed at 4:20 p.m.

1638

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Before the member makes his point of order, I would like to announce that we have investigated the situation. We have found nothing abnormal but, as a precautionary measure, we have turned off the air conditioning, so it may end up being a bit warm in here. The member for Nickel Belt has a point of order.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps it is a point of information, Mr. Speaker. We on this side are not surprised at all that you could not find the source of the odour. We think it is the budget.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Shall we resume petitions?

Miss Martel: Picking up from where I left off, I would like to reintroduce two petitions actually, both of them signed by 12 residents of Etobicoke, Ontario. The first one reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned,” --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the member’s mike turned on?

Mr. Laughren: Maybe she’s plugged into the air conditioner.

The Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

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

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Oh, there it is.

Miss Martel: I know. It gets better.

I have signed my name to endorse that.

The second petition is:

“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 well-being of the people of our province and we object to the further commercialising of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

Again, I have endorsed my signature to that.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Reville: 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 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 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 the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

This has been signed by 20 petitioners, and I have endorsed my name thereon.

Mr. Mackenzie: 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 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 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

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Malarkey.

Mr. Mackenzie: Cut out the interjections and it will be easier to read.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Keep them coming, Vince. We don’t mind. Your interjections are so much fun.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: You guys are crazy.

Mr. Mackenzie: Well, we could switch to the lousy budget we just had, but --

An hon. member: How do you know?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We saw it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Mackenzie: “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;

I am pleased to affix my signature to the 20 names that are on this petition from the community right around my constituency.

Mr. Fleet: I have a petition. 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 NDP demands unfettered public hearings into the government’s municipal option Sunday shopping bill while at the same time refusing to allow those public hearings to begin through cheap, theatrical, delaying tactics;

“And whereas the NDP has been demanding action from the government in housing, education, social services and health care in a budget that it now says it will not permit to be introduced;

“And whereas it is patently ridiculous and hypocritical for a party whose members shop on Sundays to argue that Sunday shopping is wrong;

“And whereas it is idiocy to suggest only those who oppose Sunday shopping love their families;

“And whereas it is hypocrisy for a party that claims to represent all working people to demand that the one third of Ontario employees who now work on Sundays remain in permanent servitude to the two thirds who don’t;

“And whereas the NDP claims to be speaking for all the people of Ontario whereas it is in fact speaking only for those who oppose Sunday shopping and sucking up to the trade union movement like it always does;

“And whereas the NDP appears to be labouring under the false delusion that it won the September 10 provincial election;

“And whereas the NDP’s concept of official opposition status appears to be now reduced to the ‘do what we say or we’ll hold our breath until we turn blue’ school of logic;

“And whereas the NDP now appears to be practicing the same sort of arrogant pigheadedness of which it repeatedly accuses the Liberals;

“And whereas it is the obligation of the government to respect the rights of minority parties only so long as they use, rather than abuse, the rules of parliamentary democracy;

“And whereas taxpayers’ money is clearly being wasted by this unmitigated farce;

“And whereas the NDP appears to be afraid of putting this fight before a legislative committee where all sides can seek to influence the will of the government;

1650

“And whereas Bob Rae is not normally this stupid;” -- that is the part I have the greatest difficulty with --

“Therefore we call upon Bob Rae and his tiny band of not-so-merry men and women to realize they are not necessarily the fonts of all moral wisdom on every last issue in the universe;

“And failing that, we call upon Bob Rae and the NDP to realize that on some issues, you can’t suck and blow wind at the same time;

“And failing that, we ask them to at least realize they are becoming derivative and boring.”

It is signed by Lorrie Goldstein, and I have added my signature as well.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am wondering if the member would have the guts to repeat his comments about sucking up to the trade unions once again so we know where he is really coming from.

Mr. Fleet: It’s in Hansard.

An hon. member: Hansard will record it for posterity.

Mr. Velshi: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the honourable member trying to say that an Ontario petitioner has not got a democratic right to say what he wants in this province?

Mr. Mackenzie: It wasn’t a petition.

Mr. Swart: I want to say that of course it is difficult to suck and blow at the same time. That party over there does pretty well, because they blow one day and suck the next.

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:

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

This is signed by two people from the Windsor area, and I am affixing my signature to it, as required by the rules of procedure.

Ms. Bryden: I am honoured to perform my function in this democratic process of presenting a petition from 24 residents of Metropolitan Toronto who wish to petition the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on the subject of opposition to Sunday shopping and Sunday working. I will read the petition:

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

I endorse this petition and am pleased to sign it.

Mr. Charlton: I have, first, a petition signed by 19 residents of Etobicoke:

“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;

I have affixed my signature to this petition as well.

Second, I have a petition from two residents of Toronto:

“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 urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to the legislation it has announced, but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario;

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation ‘was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres,’ but plans none the less to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more -- and not less -- difficult to enforce; and

1700

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment, because it provides them only with a right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions, and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary refereed by officials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weighs heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

I have also affixed my signature to this petition.

Mr. Farnan: I have a petition that was submitted from Kitchener. 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 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

I have pleasure in adding my name to this petition, particularly as the Liberal members representing these Waterloo ridings, although they personally say they are opposed to Sunday shopping, nevertheless are not bringing forward the wishes of the people in their ridings.

Mr. Philip: As the Attorney General’s (Mr. Scott) blood pressure goes into further remission, I beg to present yet 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” --

Interjection.

Mr. Philip: General Bullmoose is interrupting me again, the senator from wherever.

“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.”

It is signed by a number of residents of the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale, including, I notice, a few of my neighbours on Silverstone Drive in Rexdale.

Miss Martel: It is a pleasure for me to continue to participate in this democratic process. I have yet another petition, of course, addressed, “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.” 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 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

I have affixed my name to this petition as endorsement.

1710

Mr. Allen: I beg leave to read into the record a petition bearing 17 names from Melrose United Church in Hamilton, which is under the spiritual oversight of the Rev. Dr. Peter Wyatt, one of our city’s most thoughtful clergymen.

“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 government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the 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 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

“We urge the 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.”

Madam Speaker, I have affixed my name to this petition according to the rules, and I send it to the Clerk at the table.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have another petition which has been signed by a number of residents of the province concerning the issue of Sunday closing.

“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 commercialization of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I hope that the province will take serious consideration of this petition. I have affixed my name to it, and I send it for consideration.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have one or two petitions I would like to bring forward at this time. The first is from a number of constituents of Etobicoke-Rexdale, and it is on 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 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.”

I will add my signature to it.

The second petition has seven names from the people of Scarborough. It begins 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

I affix my signature.

Mr. B. Rae: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is signed by about 20 people who are members of the Humbercrest United Church, with the words: “Your help against working Sundays is needed. Thank you.”

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

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

1720

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

I put my signature on it, Madam Speaker, and present it to you accordingly.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: 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:

“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 further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I 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:

“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 views that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

Mrs. Grier: I 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 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

It is signed by eight residents of Hamilton, Caledonia, Oakville, Dundas and Burlington.

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition which is signed by 33 residents of Etobicoke and Rexdale. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

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

I am signing my name to this as well.

Mr. Reville: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

There are seven petitioners who have signed the petition, all of whom appear to be neighbours of the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip). I have appended my name thereto.

I will read another petition, if the page would like to stick around. 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 report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

1730

“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.”

There are nine petitioners who have signed the document, and I have appended my name thereto.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased to continue to participate in this debate and that 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:

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment, because it provides them only with a right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition and pass it down to the table.

Ms. Bryden: I am pleased to participate in this democratic process of bringing the opinions of the residents of Ontario to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I have a petition signed by nine residents of two streets in Scarborough, Painted Post Drive and Shropshire Drive. They petition 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

I have signed the petition and I support it.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition with quite a number of signatures on it. The petition has about 40 signatures in total of people from right across Ontario. 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:

I will affix my signature to it and hope the government will take it into serious consideration.

1740

Mr. Charlton: I have a petition that is signed by 41 residents of Etobicoke.

“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:

I have affixed my signature thereon.

I have a second petition signed by nine residents of Hamilton:

“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

I have affixed my signature thereon as well.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have been waiting for this moment to introduce this particular petition, because the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) has just come back to the chamber. This is one from a fairly large number of people from the Etobicoke area, which I know the member for Sudbury is vaguely aware of.

“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:

I will affix my name to it. I invite the Legislature to participate in a full and open hearing.

I do have another one from a group of people who participated in a forum on education here in the city of Toronto just this last week. It is entitled 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 Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987” -- parenthetically, members will note that was before the last election -- “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

As I say, it is signed by a number of people interested in education matters in the city of Toronto.

THE TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS

Mr. Faubert: I am pleased to participate in this process by the submission of this urgent petition and to put it on the record of this Legislature in the spirit of equity to our working press:

“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 city of Toronto is driven by a desire to excel to world-class status or, failing that, to make a lot of money trying;

“And whereas the city of Toronto has achieved world-class recognition being chosen as the site of an international economic summit meeting in June;

“And whereas the city of Toronto seeks to cleanse itself of all smudges so as to present an acceptable face to world leaders;

“And whereas the province of Ontario has demonstrated a willingness to co-operate in presenting the best possible face by introducing a law to suspend the right to strike of workers on the conference site;

“And whereas the New Democratic Party has suspended its right to represent workers by endorsing this legislation without a peep of protest;

1750

“And whereas hockey is recognized as a world-class sport;

“And whereas the Toronto Maple Leafs continue to be of doubtful use as a demonstration of Canada’s prowess in this sport;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, do beg leave to request that the Legislature of Ontario enact legislation to rename the said hockey team the Hamilton Maple Leafs and provide for the necessary transfer of the National Hockey League franchise forthwith.”

That is signed by the author, Orland French, and I have affixed my name to that.

Mr. Wildman: I do not know whether they should send the franchise to Hamilton or just change the name to the Toronto Make-Me-Laughs.

The Deputy Speaker: The petition reads?

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 27 residents of Etobicoke, Mississauga, Rexdale, Agincourt, Newmarket, Woodbridge and Weston which is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“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” shop-until-you-drop “legislation.”

Mr. D. S. Cooke: 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:

I will sign that and I have one other. 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 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 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.”

The petition is signed by 25 residents of Hamilton, Ontario.

Mr. Allen: I have a petition here from Stanley Avenue Baptist Church, which is just a few blocks away from my constituency office. Twenty of the members of that church wish to petition 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

I have affixed my signature to this, according to the rules of the House, and I send this petition to the Clerk’s table.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I seek unanimous consent to move to motions to deal with one motion.

Agreed to.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that, notwithstanding standing order 71(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 15, 16 and 18, standing in the names of the members for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), Oakville South (Mr. Carrothers) and Parry Sound (Mr. Eves).

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

April 20, 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HEALTH SERVICES

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

DIANA LYNG

PROPOSED ROAD EXTENSION

IAN MILLAR

FARM CHEMICALS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HOME CARE

LANDFILL SITES

TRANSIT SERVICES

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

ABANDONED RAILWAY LINES

WASTE MANAGEMENT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SCHOOL FUNDING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SCHOOL FUNDING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NATUROPATHY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NATUROPATHY

HEURES OUVRABLES / RETAIL STORE HOURS

BUDGET

PETITIONS (CONTINUED)

RETAIL STORE HOURS

THE TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS