Hansard Transcript 1988-Jun-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Miss Martel: In the past few weeks in this House, I have tried to highlight the situation in the village of Warren in the east end of my riding. There, Ontario Hydro is proposing to relocate 12 administrative jobs from the community to North Bay. I have done so in order to persuade the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) to intervene personally and direct Hydro to maintain its present operations in the community.

The minister’s only response has been to advise Hydro management of our concerns and ask management that it take these concerns into account alongside its business considerations. That response is just not good enough. At a public meeting held in Warren last Sunday night, reeves and councillors representing all of the outlying communities indicated their dismay with Hydro’s intentions. Each individual indicated the importance of this employment to maintaining the economic wellbeing of the community. All reinforced the idea that the social costs of such a relocation would far outweigh any savings Hydro could hope to make.

The response from the rest of the community was as overwhelming. The prevailing attitude was that the consequences of any relocation of jobs would be devastating for the community and the outlying communities. I again ask the Minister of Energy to intervene and direct Ontario Hydro to maintain intact its present operation in Warren.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr. Jackson: On Thursday morning, I intend to move resolution 37, a motion standing in my name in Orders and Notices. The resolution suggests that a committee of the Legislature examine the problem of sexual assault and report back by the year’s end. The proposal would allow for public input and in-depth study of the complex issues surrounding the treatment of sexual assault victims within our criminal justice system.

Faced with rather inappropriate comments by certain Ontario judges, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has already been asked to take action to educate and train members of the bench to show compassion and sensitivity to women who have been sexually assaulted. This issue deserves examination. Compensation for victims also merits study.

In addition, the motion urges constructive discussion on the ways in which all levels of government can work together to provide support services to these victims. I have already documented in this House the severe and damaging consequences of the refusal of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) to fund the staffing needs of rape crisis centres. Members of this party find the resultant cutbacks in service completely unacceptable.

Resolution 37 complements the decision by the minister responsible for women’s issues (Mr. Sorbara) to launch an interministerial effort on this front. Committee hearings will round out this government’s initiative by allowing the victims of sexual assault to come forward to tell their story. While ministry bureaucrats hammer out the details of a co-ordinated approach to the problem, the committee will allow politicians and the public alike to hear about the human impact of sexual assault as women share the experiences which they have faced at the hands of the police, courts and government.

VISITOR

Mr. Matrundola: It gives me great pleasure to welcome and introduce to the House Marian Wojciechowski, the chief archivist of Poland.

Mr. Wojciechowski, a professor of modern history at the University of Warsaw, has served as undersecretary for the Polish Academy of Science, and in 1980 he became the chief custodian of Polish libraries and archives.

During his two-and-a-half-week visit, he will be meeting with the chief archivist of Ontario, Ian Wilson, and the national archivist of Canada, Jean-Pierre Wallot.

Mr. Wojciechowski is in the members’ gallery today with his family. I am sure I speak for all members of this honourable chamber when I say I hope that Mr. Wojciechowski has a pleasant, educational and rewarding stay in Ontario.

AIR QUALITY

Mr. Laughren: Several times every year when the weather is dry in the Sudbury area and the wind is blowing, Inco tailings are lifted by the wind and blown across the surrounding area. The blowing tailings are so thick that motorists on the Trans-Canada Highway have to turn on their lights in order to make their way in and out of Sudbury.

This Sunday past was a good example of that. I happened to be on Highway 17 west at the time and I too had to turn on my lights in order to make my way home.

The tailings are blown into people’s homes, cars, on to the vegetation and into the local creeks and lakes. Inco’s response is always one of concern and an offer to pay for any damage caused by the tailings. There is, however, no way to assess the environmental damage or to estimate what tourists think of having to turn on their headlights on what is an otherwise bright and sunny day.

More than 10 years ago, Inco was given permission to expand its tailings area and it agreed to control the problem of blowing tailings, which it has not done. I can assure the House that if the blowing of tailings occurred in southern Ontario as it did in Sudbury this last Sunday, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) would be turning cartwheels in order to resolve the problem. It is time the Minister of the Environment stopped giving us bland assurances, stopped being an apologist for Inco and got on with the job of cleaning up those tailings.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Eves: Today I am bringing to the attention of the House, and specifically the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), the position of the Ontario Hospital Association regarding the ministry’s unwillingness to recognize its responsibility.

As I and the official opposition have been pointing out almost every day for the last four weeks, the Minister of Health has a responsibility to tell the public that some services may have to be cut from hospitals if they are to continue operating within the ministry’s unreasonable expectations.

In a statement released on June 3, 1988, the OHA says: “Half of the province’s 222 hospitals will be compelled to take serious economy measures to avoid budget deficits this year. Many of them will have to close beds, curtail certain health services and reduce staffing costs. OHA expects the Ministry of Health to be prepared to accept public responsibility in situations where funding constraints make service cuts unavoidable.”

The Minister of Health has refused to listen to the requests for her to accept her responsibility for the mess that hospital services across the province are experiencing. Maybe now she will listen to the OHA, the organization which speaks for hospitals and their administrators.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Faubert: Leadership is precisely what this government is showing with the earlier announcement by the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) on Transportation Directions for the Greater Toronto Area.

Every member of this Legislature is aware of the difficult choices and competing demands that face this government in setting its priorities for our transportation future in the Metropolitan Toronto region. For the first time, this government has designed a transportation plan encompassing the overall needs of every region of the greater Metro area.

In formulating this plan, all transportation planning players from this area were consulted, and their input has been incorporated into both the long-term and short-term plans previously announced. For the first time, an all-encompassing comprehensive plan has been created which addresses both roads and public transit, not as separate entities but as they together contribute to both commercial and personal travel needs as a whole.

1340

As a Scarborough representative, I was personally pleased to see that the option for future implementation of the Sheppard subway line has been preserved despite previous news reports and speculation to the contrary. The way is now clear to start all the necessary feasibility planning and engineering studies which are required to take place prior to any construction proceeding.

The dynamic nature of urban growth in the greater Metro area requires strong directions in transportation to ensure the region’s continued vitality and economic success. This transportation plan is another example of this government’s consultative and comprehensive approach to meeting the needs of this province.

DAVID LEWIS SCHOOL

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Last night at the Board of Education for the City of Scarborough, a motion by trustee Patricia Collie proved successful, much to the surprise of many of us on this side of the House. I am very pleased to tell the House today that a new school in the city of Scarborough will be named in honour of David Lewis, one of the past leaders of the New Democratic Party in Canada.

It is a great example, I think, for a school, in that he came here as an immigrant who spoke no English at all and then went on to succeed so well that he became a Rhodes scholar and one of the most eminent labour lawyers in the country as well as one of the most esteemed leaders of our party.

I thought all members should know that those who thought of Scarborough as a wasteland ideologically can now feel much better. We now have a Woodsworth school, an Agnes Macphail school and a David Lewis school. Things are looking up in Scarborough.

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Ministry of Health. Some time ago, the former Minister of Health indicated a new facility at the Oak Ridge Mental Health Centre in Penetanguishene. The new minister, I understand, also supports that project. I am wondering if the minister will soon make the announcement for that new facility to be built.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

Hon. Mr. Ward: It is my belief and that of this government --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We do not have copies of the statement for this ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Are they forthcoming? The Attorney General.

TRESPASSING

Hon. Mr. Scott: Just more than a year ago, I received the report of a task force which considered Ontario’s Trespass to Property Act as it relates to private property generally open to the public, such as malls and fairgrounds. Today I will be introducing a bill that responds to that report and to the comments I have received since the report was delivered.

The task force report was prepared by Raj Anand, who was recently appointed to head the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In his report, Mr. Anand tackled a very difficult question, namely, how to define the rights of the public with respect to the use of privately owned facilities designed for public use.

He reported to me a concern that our province’s Trespass to Property Act had the potential to be used, and -- not often but occasionally -- was being used as a means of discriminating against young people and those who looked or acted differently. Obviously, no one in this Legislature would condone one of our statutes being used for that purpose, openly or subconsciously.

The amendments we will introduce today will, I believe, correct that situation. However, they will still allow property owners to protect themselves, their customers and tenants against inappropriate behaviour.

The amendments will allow the owner or occupier of a property to draft and post rules of behaviour for the use of the premises. The occupier will only be able to exclude persons from the premises for conduct that is not compatible with the public’s use of the premises or for contravening the posted rules. However, the occupier will also be required to explain why someone is asked to leave.

For the first time, the amendments will allow a person charged with trespassing to raise as a defence the question of whether either the posted rules or the property owner’s action was reasonable. Factors relevant to that determination include the nature of the premises, the nature of the conduct and the degree of disruption and consequences for other users of the premises.

It will also put an end to the situation where someone can essentially be banned for life from a facility. Instead, the owner of a facility will be able to keep someone out for 30 days and will have to have a sustainable reason to continue the person’s exclusion from the facility.

The law will thus be that anyone will be able to use this type of facility as long as he or she does not break posted rules or engage in behaviour which is incompatible with the intended use of the premises.

We believe this bill is balanced. It allows those who own facilities of this type to protect themselves and other users, but it also protects those whose only offence, as it were, is to be young or a member of a visible minority.

EDUCATION REVIEWS

Hon. Mr. Ward: It is my belief and that of this government that we have a responsibility to Ontario to measure and report upon the quality of our system of education.

Parents have a sincere and constructive concern about the effectiveness of school programs, particularly those that are intended to provide a sound foundation in the basic skills of reading and mathematics.

The provincial review program is a key part of this government’s commitment to make our system of education more accountable. On May 11, 1988, my ministry released the results of the first provincial review, a pilot project in Canadian studies geography. This review collected information from students, teachers and other educators on the nature of the instructional program and measured the achievement of students taking the course.

I believe it is time we now began to measure and report upon the skills of our children in the two essential and basic areas of literacy and numeracy. Therefore, I am pleased to announce today that my ministry will conduct, in the 1988-89 school year, provincial reviews in reading and mathematics for grade 6 students.

The provincial review of reading will focus on the range of literacy skills needed by an individual to function effectively. The provincial review of mathematics will assess student knowledge and skills in arithmetic, measurement and geometry.

My ministry will select 100 English-language schools and 100 French-language schools for participation in the provincial reviews and will report publicly in December 1989 on the results of each review in terms of both program effectiveness and student performance.

The provincial reviews are intended to provide to the parents, students and educators of Ontario a clear evaluation of how well our system of education is performing, how effectively it is meeting the demands we place upon it.

Let me be clear that the reviews are not designed as, or intended to become, a mechanism for comparing the performance of student against student, school against school or board against board; nor do they represent a return to province-wide standardized testing as practised until 1967 in Ontario.

Instead, the provincial reviews provide us with an opportunity to assess, in co-operation with our teachers, the effectiveness with which programs are being taught in our classrooms and how well the information is being retained by our students. Through provincial reviews, our teachers may gain a new perspective on which teaching strategies are most effective, and my ministry will gain useful insight for developing and improving the curriculum we offer for the students of Ontario.

As established in our first provincial review, we are proceeding in this endeavour with the involvement and support of the teaching profession. Our assessment instruments, including the questions and questionnaires for students, are designed with the help of teaching professionals.

I am releasing today to the directors of education at all Ontario school boards an information brochure describing the 1988-89 provincial reviews. Each board will be advised which schools within its jurisdiction have been selected to participate in the reviews. In addition, I am today inviting school boards to participate further by volunteering to carry out full local board reviews. This will enable an individual board to evaluate how the performance of its schools and its students compares with the province-wide levels of achievement.

Our provincial review initiative marks the beginning of a new era of accountability for education in this province. Our provincial reviews will provide us with report cards on our system of education; report cards that I believe should mean as much to all of us as the report cards our children bring home from school.

1350

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Hon. Mr. Patten: As members know, the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and I have announced a series of sites where provincially owned lands will be made available under the Housing First policy. Our goal, of course, is to create more housing for low- and moderate-income earners.

Housing First is a priority. Our government is committed to working in partnership with municipalities across the province in a dedicated effort to build sound and affordable housing for Ontario. On April 13, I announced the release of five sites in the Metropolitan Toronto area totalling 93.5 acres. On May 30, I announced the release of 97 acres of land in Stoney Creek.

I have talked with Peel Chairman Frank Bean and Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion as well as Guelph Mayor John Counsell, and today I am pleased to announce the development of sites in both Mississauga and Guelph. The provincial lands, totalling approximately 66 acres, will be used to produce more affordable housing in these two communities. They include a 19.5-acre site in Mississauga at the northeast corner of Highway 403 and Hurontario Street and a 47.2-acre site in Guelph at Victoria Road and Eastview Road. We believe that these two sites will permit the development of up to 1,250 housing units, of which 900 will be affordable.

My ministry, in co-operation with the city of Mississauga, has produced a plan which responds to both the housing and commercial needs in the future downtown area of this fast-growing community. The 19.5-acre Mississauga site has the potential of providing 850 apartment units and 35,000 square metres of commercial office space. By combining both residential and commercial office-space uses on this site, we are creating a balanced community in which residents can work and live and one that reflects the mix of activities in Mississauga’s developing downtown core. This draft plan has been submitted to the city and to the region for approval, when the final densities will be determined.

The Ministry of Housing has already begun discussions with the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp. with the intention of providing up to 850 apartment units, 500 of which will be available for its own nonprofit program. My colleague the Minister of Housing is in Mississauga today meeting with local officials and groups, such as the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp., that are involved with providing assisted housing.

The Guelph site, known as Hadati Farm, is a planned community. It already has 670 homes, including both single-family homes on small lots and higher-density units. The 47.2 acres released today will provide an additional 235 single-family units and 165 nonprofit units of town-housing. All of this is geared to low- and moderate-income earners.

On approval of our draft plan for the development, the land will be sold with multiple-housing blocks reserved for nonprofit housing.

This government intends to proceed with the planning on these two sites so that development can begin as soon as possible. We will work closely with each municipality to develop balanced communities and neighbourhoods that people will be proud to live in for years to come. The Minister of Housing and I intend to make further announcements regarding other sites throughout the province in the coming weeks.

RESPONSES

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. Breaugh: I want to respond briefly to the statement made by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten). It seems to be one of a series of announcements where the Minister of Government Services stands up and gives us the itinerary for the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek). While this is all very interesting, it does not really do very much for anybody.

We are interested as well in all of the good intentions that the ministry has and all of the wonderful potential that is out there. It is such a shame that each day the most concrete thing he has to say is that he is selling off more government land, which in fact could be used to provide affordable housing but it is not going to do that.

We are interested, for example, that in today’s quasi announcement there is something like 35,000 square metres of commercial space. That is fine, but that does not do anything for affordable housing either. I think we are ready to join with the councillor at Stoney Creek, Pat Richardson, who said after the great Stoney Creek announcement, “I wish the announcement was for units over and above what is planned, but there is nothing new.”

We are interested in this dog-and-pony show, but I really do not believe it warrants or is useful to make announcements of this kind in the Legislature. If they want to travel Ontario, that is fine. If they want to tell us how they are selling off land across Ontario, that is fine. But they should not pretend they are doing anything for affordable housing or providing more affordable housing anywhere in Ontario with this kind of announcement.

TRESPASSING

Mr. Hampton: I want to respond to the statement made by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) earlier. The Attorney General is indeed correct when he says that how to define the rights of the public with respect to the use of privately owned facilities designed for public use is indeed a serious question, and we welcome the opportunity to examine the government’s proposed legislation. Without having seen the proposed legislation, and on the basis of the Attorney General’s statement today, several questions are already raised.

First, does this legislation deal with, or is it intended to apply to, labour disputes which may occur in connection with shopping malls? If it does, the proposed 30-day ban is quite simply absurd and unjust, and the Attorney General should know our position on that right off the bat.

Second, when we have words such as “the occupier will only be able to exclude persons from the premises for conduct that is not compatible with the public’s use of the premises or for contravening the posted rules,” and we are going to look at the reasonableness of rules and we are going to look at appropriate use, I suggest to the Attorney General that we have already opened a bag of snakes. The legislation had better be more specific and deal with the tough issues more directly than in just these kinds of general terms.

We are going to look at this legislation very carefully. We say to the Attorney General already that the 30-day ban, as it would apply to a labour dispute, has no place in this kind of legislation.

EDUCATION REVIEWS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise to respond to the announcement today of the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) on provincial reviews. I want him to know that after a brief survey of the pages, they have asked me not to say anything publicly about their position.

I did want to say, however, that I am not displeased at all with these kinds of diagnostic tests. I think they are important in terms of getting a sense of how the system is working. I hope these are an indication that the minister is continuing to get advice from his own advisory group to stay away from province-wide testing of students and that he is going to ignore the Premier’s Council and its misguided direction in that area and stand up to it with all the strength he can.

I have some concerns about the methodology and would love to hear more from the minister or ministry officials about how it works. There is no indication here as to whether the schools are going to be divided just among the separate schools and the public schools, or whether private schools will be included, nor any idea of why it was that 100 schools from the French-language section, as well as 100 from the English-language section, have been chosen, when of course there is such a major discrepancy in the numbers of those schools out there in the system.

Whether we think we will be getting valid information from that kind of a sampling would be useful to me as a critic to know at some point or other, but in general it is this kind of diagnostic tool which we think is useful and will be useful to educators and will be nonthreatening to students. We hope that the minister continues in this kind of a thrust rather than following the dangerous road of the Premier’s Council and others who want to go back to those horrible province-wide tests that a number of us had to endure in the 1960s.

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. J. M. Johnson: To the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten), his announcement sounds good, but I would just like to ask a question of clarification on affordable housing. Is he talking about affordable rental units or affordable purchase prices for single or detached units? He never does clarify that, so possibly he could do so in the very near future.

I would like to say that if he can work with Peel Chairman Frank Bean, Mayor Hazel McCallion and Guelph Mayor John Counsell, he must be doing something right.

Since the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) has decided to move the head office of his ministry to Guelph -- which is a very wise decision -- it is only appropriate that he should be providing some housing accommodation, especially some low-cost housing for those poor staff members who will be moving to Guelph. If the minister keeps putting housing into Wellington, it is an excellent idea. I assume that is why the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro) is not here. He is likely up with his mayor celebrating the arrival of the new homes in Guelph.

1400

TRESPASSING

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond very briefly to the statement by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). I think it is a very delicate balance we have to try to achieve here, indeed, of individual rights versus private property rights. We will be working with the Attorney General in a constructive sense to try to make this a very workable piece of legislation.

The Attorney General may want to consider some sort of monitoring period -- maybe he has already thought about that -- to see whether or not, in effect, it is going to be practical and workable.

EDUCATION REVIEWS

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to respond to the announcement of the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) of provincial reviews. This is definitely good news but it is certainly not new news. It is clear that the minister is now implementing in his second and third years initiatives that were established by the previous government, in terms of developing instruments for measuring student achievement in this province.

But the issues are a lot deeper than just simply monitoring students’ performance, because underneath that examination are the kinds of other supports that our public school systems require in this province. Where is the minister’s commitment to measuring teacher effectiveness, which is the front line of the delivery of education in this province? Where is the minister’s commitment to examining how much we are compressing and complicating the curriculum that we are providing to students? Where is the government’s commitment to ensure that our students are using current learning materials, especially when we are monitoring readers and reading effectiveness?

I notice that the ministry even slips in the word “literacy.” I was hoping that the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling), at least, some time in his first term, would have something to say about literacy, but if it has to fall back on the Minister of Education, where it rightfully belongs, we are pleased to hear at least a small comment about measuring grade 6 students and their literacy levels and achievements.

We know there are thousands of students in this province using old readers, who are getting their entire programs off mimeographs as opposed to having the proper textbooks and the proper current learning materials. We need that kind of support, coupled with teacher effectiveness and review and assistance. All three elements are what will undoubtedly be used as the measurement as to whether we are providing an effective curriculum in this province.

His indicating, as well, that school boards, on a voluntary basis, can choose to bring in a second school for purposes of comparison sort of betrays the government’s commitment to ensure that school boards are encouraged to do more internal reviews and to help identify those areas within a board that require further assistance. Whether it is because of complicated demographics or whether certain groups within the school system require further assistance, those kinds of reviews would be very helpful. But the government would have to fund the findings. Perhaps that is why the minister refuses to deal in a little more forceful manner in terms of measuring student performance.

But it is good news. It is not news. I am sure the school boards will be pleased to give the minister the information, which I am sure he will make public to all and every member of this House as soon as he has it on his desk.

Mr. Speaker: That completes ministerial statements and responses.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS

Mr. B. Rae: In view of the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), perhaps I could address my questions to the Premier, who is here today. The minister has today given a speech which she has released to the public, in which she states: “Health care spending is on a collision course with economic reality.”

Hon. Mr. Peterson: To be helpful, I have a feeling the minister will be here a little later.

Mr. B. Rae: If the Premier is here, I am delighted to ask him. He is the first minister; he is the head of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy; I am assuming he knows something about this subject. He looks tanned and fit and ready to answer a question. I thought if he were here today he would want to answer a question. This shrinking-violet routine is quite unbecoming to the Premier. I am surprised.

If I can come back, I would like to ask a question of the Premier. The minister said in her speech -- I am quoting from her -- “Health care spending is on a collision course with economic reality.”

The government has also released figures showing that while transfers to hospitals since 1982-83 have gone up by 66 per cent, and the government has cut that and rationed that service in the most draconian way, we also find that Ontario health insurance plan transfer payments have gone up 118 per cent in the same time, so what physicians are getting has grown very dramatically.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us, is it his view and the view of the government that in fact physicians’ incomes are taking too large a part of the health care budget in the province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the minister is addressing all aspects of the health care budget: physicians’ incomes, hospital budgets, drug use and a variety of other things. It is her intention, this government’s intention, to make sure that every single dollar we spend on health care is spent in the most efficient way possible.

Mr. B. Rae: I did not hear an answer to my question. The Premier has now been there for three years. He has had a chance to look at the health care system. Since he has become the Premier, OHIP billings have gone up by 50 per cent and hospital transfers have gone up by much less. The government is rationing our hospitals. They are rationing what goes to community services. They are rationing what goes to other parts of the health care system.

The question I have to the Premier is a very simple one; I am surprised I do not have an answer one way or the other. Is it now the view of the government, after being in power for this time, that in fact physicians’ incomes, billings from doctors, are taking up too large a share of the health care budget? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the honourable member’s use of the word “rationing” is unfair and I do not think it characterizes what in fact is going on. As members know, the minister talks about a comprehensive, planned health care system to meet the real needs of Ontario to make sure that we are not wasting money on duplication.

There are discussions ongoing at the present time with the physicians with respect to compensation. My honourable friend, I know, knows the history of the compensation discussions with the physicians, and I think if he looks back to the historic agreement made by a former Minister of Health, he will understand why incomes have run in that direction. That is the essential reason.

Mr. B. Rae: If I may say so, Larry Grossman, as Minister of Health, was nothing compared to what the Premier has done since becoming Premier of the province in terms of what has happened to physicians’ billings and what has happened to physicians’ incomes.

He talks about a system that is going to be planned; he talks about management. He is cutting back in relative terms on what goes to hospitals. Patients are waiting for as long as two years for an operation. At the same time, we see billings by doctors going up some 118 per cent since 1982-83. You find the drug benefit plan costs have gone up 169 per cent. You find the private laboratory spending, which is money going to private-profit entrepreneurs, in many cases doctors who are doubling as entrepreneurs, has gone up twice as much as it has gone up for the hospitals.

I have a very simple question. I think we are entitled to an answer from the Premier. Particularly at this point in time, we are entitled to an answer. Is it the view of the government that when it talks about making tough choices, one of those choices is going to involve a decision as to whether or not doctors are taking too much out of the system? Is it the Premier’s view, yes or no, that in fact physicians’ incomes are too high in relation to the rest of payments going into the system? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend is unfair when he characterizes cutbacks as well. I think that his choice of words is not correct.

The health care budget has been growing substantially in a wide variety of areas. He understands the problems with respect to physicians’ incomes and what has transpired over the last several years. He is right, they have gone up quite dramatically, but there has also been a massive increase in the number of physicians -- some 1,400, I believe, last year and the year before that as well.

In spite of some of the problems in this province, we have a large number of physicians from across this country, and indeed other countries, who want to practise here; so it is partly a function of the new physicians who have been admitted into practice as well. It is also a function of new diseases, new technology and an ageing population. My honourable friend can see that there are demands on the system that are growing exponentially.

1410

It is the intention of the Minister of Health to look at all aspects of the health care system to make sure that it is being efficiently run, that we are getting the maximum mileage for every dollar spent and, at the same time, deliver quality care to every single Ontarian. I think the exercise she is involved in is a constructive one and I think most people in the province of Ontario would agree with the kind of approach she is taking.

Mr. B. Rae: She is the one who said that her own strategy was on a collision course with economic reality. Those are not my words, those are her words and the Premier is going to have to live with them.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: The question I have for the Premier, again, by way of supplementary -- he, in fact, in his last answer allowed us to move quite naturally into it, to glide quite naturally into it -- is this: my colleagues from northern Ontario held several hearings last week in Thunder Bay, in Atikokan, in Emo and in Dryden, dealing with problems of health care in the north.

They heard from over 52 individuals: local doctors, mental health workers, native organizations, ambulance drivers, speech-language pathologists, the whole range of health care practitioners in northwestern Ontario.

The picture that emerges from these presentations is not a well-planned, rational, wellmanaged system as it relates to the north. It is one of a badly underserviced area. It is one of a number of people who are not getting service, people who are being denied care because of where they live, because they do not live in larger population centres in the south.

In particular, they heard a submission from Dr. Rosehart, who is the president of Lakehead University. Can the Premier can tell us why the government has rejected one of the key proposals in the Rosehart report, rejected one of the key proposals that came back time and time again last week, and that is if he wants to retain health care professionals in the north the best way to do it is to have a medical training facility in the north which will train doctors, which will train nurses and which will train a range of professionals who can provide health care in the north in a way that is attuned to the experience and the life of northerners. Why has he rejected that key proposal from the Rosehart report?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I find it curious that on the first question the honourable member raised he wants to punish the doctors and the second time he says we want to be nice to them and we need more of them. I just thought it was passing curious.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thought it was noteworthy to observe on the paradox presented by my colleague opposite.

We recognize, as my honourable friend does, that not all areas in the north are as well served as certain areas of the south. Indeed, certain areas of the north are not served as well as other areas of the north, because some of the major centres are doing very well. I was there last week or a week and a half ago and we opened a renal dialysis unit at McKellar General Hospital that serves a very large catchment area. I do not deny for a moment that there are not individual problems with professionals.

My honourable friend refers to a recommendation of the Rosehart report that calls for a medical school in northern Ontario. There are other alternatives we are looking at at the present time. They concern a certain amount of training in northern Ontario, particularly with northern Ontario residents using the facilities we have in conjunction with the existing facilities. There are lots of creative approaches, we think, that can address some of those needs.

Mr. Pouliot: A number of doctors appeared in front of our panel. A unique case was that of Dr. Kevin Nugent from the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital. What makes the case unique is that Dr. Nugent is the only child psychiatrist in northwestern Ontario. He has to cover a population of some 230,000 people spread over several miles. Dr. Nugent says that in accordance with a recommendation from the World Health Organization, northwestern Ontario, with its population base, should at least have six child psychiatrists.

We are often accused by the government of not coming up with positive alternatives. My leader came up with one positive alternative. In order to retain people, the government must build a health facilities curriculum at Lakehead University. A second one is for the Premier to lend his support to facilitate the entrance of foreign-trained doctors to service the children of northwestern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry I am not familiar with the particular presentation shared with the House by the honourable member, but we had a similar situation in Timmins, as I recall, with respect to psychiatric services, not just child psychiatrists but psychiatric service in general. There was only one psychiatrist there for a long period of time, with an enormous workload, and that problem has been addressed in some regard.

I say to my honourable friend I appreciate the information he is bringing forward and I am sure that if the committee makes recommendations to the government or to the House, it will take everything it says seriously. We are looking at new alternatives. We have many physicians who want to come into this country. Sometimes they do not always go where we would like them to go, i.e., northern Ontario, they would rather be in other localities. We are constantly addressing the problem of the underserviced areas.

Mr. Hampton: I am intrigued by the Premier’ s answer in terms of looking at alternatives. One of the alternatives we have suggested to the Minister of Health is the alternative that the underserviced area program is not working. One of the things that was confirmed last week was that we heard from municipal councils, from individuals and from community groups who said to us, “This program simply doesn’t work.” In fact, one councillor took us through the hoops the community of Rainy River has gone through for a year in trying to find a doctor. All they have gotten from the underserviced area program is advice to the effect of, “Why don’t you offer the doctor a free car?” or, “Why don’t you offer the doctor a free house?” This to the person who, if he came to the community, would be the most highly paid.

What concrete alternatives does the government have to something like the underserviced area program which clearly is not working? All the communities say that. What alternatives does the government have?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think I accept the premise of my honourable friend that it is not working. I think I can point to a number of areas where it has worked and worked effectively. I cannot maintain that it is perfect in all regards. My honourable friend being from that area, from Fort Frances, knows some of the problems in that area of attracting physicians and keeping them there, but I can, I am sure, bring back to this House many stories of success in that regard. My honourable friend, I am sure, is not arguing for conscription or not arguing for a law forcing people to practise in certain areas, but we are trying to make it attractive to people and I think we have accomplished that in a number of areas.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier and it is with respect to a series of rather disturbing events which have occurred in the House in connection with our attempts on this side of the House to get information from the government. Recently, the Premier will be aware that my colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) made a request for legitimate information from his government and was advised that the cost of that information would be some $700 under freedom of information and at the same time that there was no guarantee he would get the information he was looking for.

Further to that, there appear to be, as of last Friday, some 161 requests for information by various individuals who have brought these requests for information to the government and been denied. The question I have for the Premier is very simple. Why is it so difficult to get information out of the government? Why is it unwilling to share the information that legitimately should be shared with the opposition, and what is this hesitancy all about?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the chairman of Management Board of Cabinet could be helpful to the honourable member.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman has raised an issue which I am trying to get up to speed on. I came in late yesterday just as the honourable gentleman sat down and I have not had a chance to discuss it with him, although I know the context of the discussion.

Our suggestions with respect to freedom of information is that the material is available except under certain circumstances. I would like to take a further look at it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is the way the act was put together by a Legislature which agreed that there are certain exemptions which should apply. I can tell members that the information is generally available and we try to accommodate in most cases.

1420

The interesting thing is that where concerns are expressed about the nature of charges which are suggested where an inordinate amount of activity is required, the member will have to understand there are two free hours of search time plus other minimum charges that are waived. If there is an expense attached, then we advise. If there is a disagreement with that -- the honourable gentleman, I understand, in his statement indicated quite clearly he was going to appeal the decision. He is well within his rights and takes the opportunity to do so appropriately, I think.

From my standpoint, we will continue to look at it. I would like to discuss it a little bit further with the honourable gentleman and see exactly what comes out. Obviously, the role of the commissioner is to deal with those questions where there is a difference of opinion with respect to the applicant and those who are making rulings about the information requested.

Mr. Brandt: My supplementary is back to the Premier. Is it required that I go to the Chairman of the Management Board?

Mr. Speaker: The usual custom and tradition has been that the supplementary flows from the answer.

Mr. Brandt: My original question flowed to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Therefore, you should ask your supplementary to the Chairman of the Management Board.

Mr. Brandt: I will reconstruct my supplementary so that it flows easily now to the Chairman of the Management Board.

I would like to bring to the chairman’s attention that on November 16, 1987, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), my colleague, indicated that he wanted to have some information with respect to the Thom report. He was advised at that time by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) that the report was being translated. We accepted that as being factual, that the report was being translated and that there was some delay.

We talked with government translation this past week. We were advised that the report was translated and returned in August 1987, fully four months before the minister told this House that the report was in the process of being translated.

We have reviewed some of these outstanding reports and have found about a dozen similar examples to the Thom report, which was no small undertaking, I might add, on the part of the government in that it took some four years and $3.1 million to complete that report. We think that report would be available to the members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Brandt: Why is it that the government -- this is the question I wanted to ask of the Premier -- is only releasing information according to its political agenda? Why is it attempting to manage the news, knowing full well that the Thorn report was released on the very same day as the Supreme Court decision on the abortion question?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We make available the information that is obviously available for the public in a timely fashion and in most appropriate cases. I can tell the honourable gentleman I do not manage the news and that we cannot manage the news because we have a very open and active group of people who report on the events of this forum. They are a very accomplished group of people.

Along with the freedom of information, the very incisive questioning which goes on day to day, and on the basis of questions the members also deliver, the people of the province are assisted in getting timely information and disclosure of information with respect to whatever it is that takes place in this forum or around the precincts of government throughout the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario.

It is our role in dealing with freedom of information requests to ensure we make information available in a timely fashion. In my capacity of dealing with the implementation of this act, I have promoted the availability of information in all cases. It is understandable, however, that there are certain exemptions provided for in the legislation. We will always take precautions so that there is no undoing of personal information by giving it inappropriately to third parties that are not authorized to receive personal information.

I am prepared to look into the member’s question about the report. If he will send me a note, I will get more detail for him if he wishes, but I am not prepared at this point to respond to particular details of that report.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: There is a supplementary, but I have to say to the minister with the greatest of respect that the answer did not in any way explain how the minister stood up in this House one day and indicated a report was being translated, and we find out that four months had already passed since the completion of that translation.

My final supplementary, however, to the minister is with respect to still another report we are awaiting with some degree of patience on this side of the House, and that is the Ontario Securities Commission investigation into PEC Financial Corp. I would remind the minister that in October 1986 the Minister of Financial Institutions told this House that the investigation was continuing. That was back in 1986. That was about two years ago, and we still do not have the results of that investigation.

When the minister indicates his government is prepared to release this information in a timely fashion to the House, how can he answer that way for a report that has some particular interest to the 130 members of this assembly? How can he answer for the fact that we still have not had this investigation completed --

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. Brandt: -- and brought to the attention of the House?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Certainly, I will consult with the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to bring him up to date on the issue the member has raised today about the need for a report to be made on that item. All of us wait, I think, with great expectation a number of reports that come down. Although he condemns us on occasion for having too many reports, I can tell him the important nature of government requires that a very thorough analysis of the material about which we are concerned requires that considerable attention be paid to the construction of the reports.

In particular, may I say that where there are examinations like those of the Ontario Securities Commission, bearing in mind the nature of the detail, the personalities and the corporate structures which may be dealt with, there will be a need for very considerable work done with respect to the report before it is made public. I will certainly advise the honourable minister that the member is interested and will undertake to receive from him for transmission or to have him directly contact the member with information about --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question. The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Harris: To the Chairman of Management Board: I am now in receipt of his response to our questions in Orders and Notices concerning his government’s inability to stick to its budget. The minister responsible for stonewalling tells us that the open government in this instance would be too costly and time-consuming. In short, it would be too much of an inconvenience to the Civil Service Commission. For the benefit of the minister, I note that all we are asking for is a budget-variance analysis, a simple standard accounting procedure, one done by every manager of every company in this province and one I thought the minister would have at his fingertips.

The procedure is described in some detail in the standard textbook on management accounting that is given to every accounting student in the province. It is described in great detail there. I could share it with him if he wants, to help him do his job.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Harris: Is the minister really telling us that his government does not, as a matter of course, follow basic accounting and business procedures in its administration of the public finances?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is raising a question about a series of items which were placed in Orders and Notices. I can tell him, from our perspective in the days of opposition, when members actually did a lot of work on their own, we were used to looking at the material which was printed in the annual estimates on the budgets and in the auditor’s reports and we assembled the material rather than asking for it to be done for us by others.

In this situation, it is a very simple task for the member, I suspect, if he thinks it is simple for us, to go ahead and ask the questions in estimates. I would be very pleased if the member would consult the estimates process and each individual minister at that time could provide him with those year-over-year analyses. In fact, it is not an unusual question to have asked. I have asked those questions myself.

Mr. Harris: I do not understand, if it is so simple, why we cannot get the answer. For the sake of the minister, let me read from the standard accounting book on what cost variance means. It says: “In cost accounting, the difference between actual and standard, or the budget, is called a variance. We use the words ‘variance’ and ‘difference’ interchangeably. In order to take effective action, we need to know what factors accounted for the difference. In this section, techniques for decomposing a total difference into the elements that account for it are described.”

1430

That is standard accounting, standard good management practice. What we are asking him is why, as the Chairman of the Management Board responsible for the effective management of the taxpayers’ money, he is loath to share that explanation of the hundreds of millions of dollars in overexpenditures that he has run up over the past three years? If he does not think that in light of the recent government’s latest tax grab the taxpayers --

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

Hon. Mr. Elston: There is no indication whatsoever that people are not willing, as ministers, to provide the member with the answers in the estimates process. We have in fact provided him with a forum in which to ask those questions and in which to get answers. I can tell him that I asked those questions on occasion myself and I can tell him that it was with a real sense of delight that we saw the attempt by the member for Carleton to introduce a particular bill that would have accomplished some of those things when we were in another parliament.

I can tell him that from my point of view all we are saying is that there are other areas in which he, with his very substantial research budgets, can receive that information. In fact, they can ask those questions in estimates and they are going to be then answered by each of the ministers in a forum that is designed to deal with those very specific questions. I think that is an appropriate place to have those questions answered.

Mr. Harris: I am surprised to hear the Chairman of the Management Board talk about estimates. This is a government that has totally ignored the committees, a government that has totally ignored standing order 88(d) and it is a government that has abused committee privileges. Now we have committees made up only of Liberals travelling around this province. He talks about the estimates process, so I will talk about it.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Harris: I have gone through the minutes of the House leaders’ meetings for the last two years. My party has asked more than 13 times in those House leaders’ meetings for time to be spent on estimates. What was the response? Last year the government provided time to deal with three per cent of the total government spending; that is the amount of time the government House leader provided for the estimates.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Harris: Obviously, they have totally ignored the estimates process and that has not --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Harris: The nitty-gritty is really this, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr. Harris: I think that is what this period of question period is for, is it not, supplementaries?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am asking the member, do you have a supplementary, and if so, will you place it?

Mr. Harris: The answer to your question is yes and thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would be pleased to place a supplementary.

The supplementary is simple: the nitty-gritty is that he is either admitting today that he has the answers, that he does analyse the budget, but that he does not want to give us the answers under the questions we have asked, or he wants to cover up the analysis. I ask him, which is it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is neither of those situations with respect to coverups or the suggestion that our area of expenditure is unreasonable. In fact, there are answers that will be provided with respect to all of those questions in the estimates process.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that with respect to the work on the estimates, the estimates process, he knows that in the last parliament there were a number of exciting events occurring that perhaps prevented him from more thoroughly analysing the estimates, but there is lots of time to deal with the estimates process if he wishes to take the opportunity.

I can tell the honourable gentleman it is very interesting that he forgets that his colleague the former Chairman of the Management Board, the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague), replied to us in a manner which was essentially to the same effect, “Ask the question in estimates.” It seems to me that, with respect to this question, there is a good forum to put the questions. It seems to be that tradition, with respect to questions like this, as established by his colleagues when they were --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I feel it is the duty of the chair to draw the members’ attention to the clock. We have had four questions and supplementaries.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod). Yesterday the students of the universities of the province produced a report condemning the present financing system and the Premier downplayed that and up-played his attempts to ameliorate the situation.

I have just handed him a copy of the Council of Ontario Universities’ report on the financial position of universities as of this year, in which they specifically contrast how we are doing with the United States. They indicate that we are barely keeping up with inflation, where state appropriations in some American jurisdictions have grown 35 per cent and 40 per cent from a much higher base than we were at in the first place.

I am asking the Premier, when will he recognize that we do have a major crisis here and that it is time for a major investment in our university system if we are going to be able to continue to compete, with or without free trade, with the United States?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do appreciate the honourable member just sending me a copy of this document, the Financial Position of Ontario Universities. I just cannot accept again the rhetoric my honourable friend employs about it being in crisis. I read the statement, as he does, between 1982-83 and 1986-87, comparing the appropriations to universities both here and in the United States, but if the member looks at 1985-88, over our period of administration, they have gone up by roughly double the rate of inflation, some 25 per cent, 26 per cent and 27 per cent, in that range. I do not deny that some university areas might have gone up 35 per cent to 40 per cent, but that is not an average.

If the member is going to make the point based on the statistical analysis, then he wants to make it quite accurately. We also notice in here that tuition fees are 70 or 80 per cent higher in universities in the United States than they are here in Ontario. I recognize that we have problems. I also recognize that we are making serious progress in that regard.

If the member wants to castigate his friends to the far left there with respect to their record, which I agree with the member was pretty dismal over that 10-year period, compare that to what is happening now and I think we are making forward progress.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would ask the Premier to read on in the report and he will see that in fact most of the things he has raised have been dealt with by the Council of Ontario Universities and have been argued against.

I want to raise with the Premier what is happening with our financially strapped universities at this point. Just across the park here we have Victoria College of the University of Toronto, which is deciding and probably very soon will be constructing a luxury hotel on university property in order to raise an income of about $1 million a year because it feels that is the only way it can continue as an institution.

I ask the Premier, is that what we are being pushed to with our universities? Is this what they should be doing with university lands? Is this the solution to the underfunding that we have had chronically, or is he going to state that in fact it is the government’s role to intervene in a much more profound way than it has and that he will not permit that kind of development to take place?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said -- and I give the member the figures again if he would like to hear them of the things that we have done and the capital allocations, some $440 million over the next four years; that is something that had never been done before -- when you look at the programs in research and development through the centres of excellence, the general operating grants that have improved very substantially, again, you can say that this is not enough, but I say to the member that we are making real progress.

At the same time, let me say that we are encouraging universities to be creative with respect to financing; as much as we disagree with the approach of some of selling off their libraries and leasing them back, which was basically a tax scam as my honourable friend knows. There are other creative ways of involving the private sector in university financing. I do not think there is any reason that the private sector should not be involved in financing our universities more than it does. That is something that happens in the United States and my honourable friend’s report substantiates that.

1440

LIBERAL TASK FORCE ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Mr. McCague: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. From time to time, all three political parties in this House have established task forces. The minister will recall that we had them on Sunday shopping and on education, and the New Democratic Party had one on insurance. They are always funded through party resources. How can the minister justify his ministry’s resources being used to fund a Liberal task force on county government, including travel, accommodation and staff, all at the taxpayers’ expense?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The county government has not been reviewed in this province for some 139 years. Our ministry staff are going out to meet with all of the counties and the municipal people across this province, regardless of whether members go or not. Wherever the members of our ministry are going to meet with the municipal people, we are inviting all members who represent those ridings to be present at those meetings.

Mr. McCague: That is an absolutely nonsensical answer. The minister knows he announced in this House that there would be a committee of this House going out to study government. Then he had a discussion in cabinet; he knew he was trapped. Now he is still sending the Liberal members out. He has two or three staff dedicated to that proposal. Why should the taxpayers pay for this Liberal-only task force? His first answer is just a façade. Why does he not answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Some of the members of all parties of this House have attended the meetings that we have held across the province. We have had excellent reaction from the county people in regard to this task force, and regardless of who attends, our ministry people are going out to meet with the counties. Every member of this House who represents one of those municipalities or counties is invited all the time to attend that task force.

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Under the Registry Act there is provision for the registration of leases so that people can see what has been leased and the terms of the lease. But I have received complaints from people living in retirement communities that they cannot register their leases because there is no legal description for the lands. At the same time, these retirement communities have the lands surveyed, they have the roads surveyed. The figures and statistics and information that we require for registration are available if the minister would only consider allowing or insisting that the information be put into registration form and registered.

My question to the minister is, what will the ministry consider doing to protect the people who are leasing these lands and to see that they have land which is described and can have their leases registered like other people?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to say to my friend that I understand such leases are in fact registerable under the Registry Act or the Land Titles Act. There is some technical aspect to this, but basically what is needed is a reference plan, and the reference plan can be gathered through all of the work that has already been done in terms of the development of the site plan.

I say to my friend it would be best if the reference plan were put into place by the developer, rather than having individual reference plans for each part of these retirement communities. I invite my friend to give me the name of any community that he is referring to quite specifically. We would be quite willing to have our officials get in touch with the developer in an effort to see if the developer will co-operate in setting up such a reference plan.

Mr. Owen: I am sure there are quite a few people in the province who will be happy to hear the answer to that. The home owners themselves buy the units that they live in on this leased land and they have complained to me that when they buy it there is no registration of their transfer of ownership. They tell me they have no way of determining who owned it, who has mortgaged it, how much was paid by previous owners of the same unit.

My question to the minister is: is there some way in which we can insist that the people who are selling these units will have to register them so that subsequent buyers of the unit can see the history of their unit, how much has been paid for it and what they are buying?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I believe it is only in British Columbia that there has been an effort to register such mobile home units and in a sense try to treat them as real property, which they are not, but treat them in the same way.

Otherwise, in Ontario until now, such units have been treated as being personal property. I suggest to my friend that, certainly, those who are buying these mobile home units have every right to make sure that, before they get an invoice, they search the personal property security registration to ensure that there is no encumbrance against the property and no encumbrance against the unit so that they can get clear title.

I suggest to my friend that where any other method has been tried, such as in British Columbia, I am told they have had a very unhappy result and indeed are thinking of turning it back to the system we now use in Ontario. But certainly these home owners should, before they complete the sale, make sure they can get clear title to the property.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr. Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Education. The minister will know that today the Ontario Public School Trustees’ Association has released a major study and also a very progressive policy with respect to religious education for Ontario’s public schools.

According to this survey, two thirds of the public elementary schools in fact do not offer the mandated religious education courses simply because there are no ministry guidelines or even no direction for them as to what is appropriate for Ontario’s schoolchildren today. It is obvious that the lack of attention to the subject is one good reason why the secondary school offering of world religions has almost no takeup across the schools system in Ontario outside the Catholic school system.

In fact, there is a growing consensus on this subject, which this document manifests.

Mr. Speaker: The question would be?

Mr. Allen: Will the minister assure us, recognizing the long inattention which has been given to this subject, that he will now move quickly, as all due care and prudence dictates, to develop draft curriculum guidelines, pilot projects and teacher training arrangements in order to put in place an up-to-date new program of religious education in Ontario as quickly as he can?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am happy to indicate to my colleague the member for Hamilton West that indeed the ministry is prepared to move with all due care and prudence, as suggested in his question.

I would also remind him that in response to a question by the member for Etobicoke West (Mrs. LeBourdais) some two or three weeks ago, I indicated at that time that the Ministry of Education is working very closely with the Ministry of Citizenship as we explore ways by which we can develop a representative group to assist us in looking at these very contentious issues.

It is my hope that we can come up with a policy which really does reflect the diversity of this province and from there proceed with either revisions to the current regulations or possibly further into the development of appropriate guidelines.

Mr. Allen: I notice the minister referred to “prudence,” but he did not refer to “quickly.” I know that on this issue the ministry he now heads has a kind of glacial approach to prudence which I think he might try to overcome a little bit in this particular case.

I want to emphasize for the minister that what is proposed in this document by the school trustees is virtually identical to the resolution I put before the House two weeks ago, which this House overwhelmingly endorsed. Just so that everybody in the public and in the House is clear as to where this document is going and where the minister is going, may I read just a portion of the initial statement?

“In recognition of the pluralistic nature of Ontario’s society, the Ontario Public School Trustees’ Association recommends that any form of religious education in public schools in Ontario be multifaith and multicultural in approach. Religious indoctrination has no place in the public school system.”

I want the minister to tell us clearly, as I thought he began to do in his earlier answer, whether, as he goes about his task, he will be focusing his energies entirely on a multifaith, nonindoctrinating approach to religious instruction in the schools, so that we may put in the past the kinds of problems of recent notoriety that afflicted Elgin county?

1450

Hon. Mr. Ward: I can assure the member that is one approach we will be giving careful consideration to. I also want to assure him that it was only through oversight I made no reference to the “quickly.” In fact, I believe we have meetings scheduled tomorrow between the two ministries, and we cannot do it any faster than that.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: In the absence of the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon), I have a question that has significant implications for consumers. I will direct it to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister may recall during the debate on Bill 2, the government’s massive intervention into private sector auto insurance -- I do not know whether the minister can hear me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am having difficulty.

Mr. Runciman: I am trying to recall for the minister the debate during Bill 2, the government’s massive intervention into private sector auto insurance, when our party pointed out the concern that consumers were going to be faced with a very serious reduction in the number of options afforded them in terms of the number of companies out there providing automobile insurance and that individuals, consumers, were going to be forced into the Facility Association at much higher premiums. Is the minister aware of what is occurring in that area now and that those predictions that were made by my party are indeed coming true?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: No, I am not aware of individual circumstances that the honourable member suggests are now occurring.

Mr. Runciman: That is not surprising. When I talk to the Minister of Financial Institutions he is not aware of what is happening in his portfolio, and this minister is not aware of significant happenings in terms of their impact on consumers in this province.

What they are doing with respect to automobile insurance is going to have the same impact as rent review in this province on the availability of affordable housing.

For the minister’s information, Commercial Union Assurance has cancelled 129 brokers in the province. Home Insurance has cancelled 100 brokers. Safeco has cancelled 37 brokers. That is all in the first quarter of this year, with many more to follow. Obviously, as early as this fall, the potential exists for a significant problem, perhaps even a crisis, in terms of the availability of automobile insurance options for consumers in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Runciman: Is the minister prepared to make himself familiar with this situation and take whatever action is necessary to remedy it?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think that is a question better put to the Minister of Financial Institutions, who would have responsibility in this area. I know my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville understands that the minister is not here today, but I will certainly be pleased to pass on the member’s question to the Minister of Financial Institutions and he will look into the matter and he and I can share some discussions as to whether there is any impact in the allegations and the suggestions my honourable friend makes.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Black: Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to know my question is for the Minister of the Environment. I hope there will be time for him to give an adequate answer.

It is generally accepted that lakes and streams in areas regularly receiving precipitation with pH levels of less than 4.7 suffer damage. When precipitation with pH readings of less than 4.0 occur, the damage to the environment, to the drinking water, to buildings and to people’s health is considered serious.

During the 23-day period between February 14 and March 26, 1988, the Ministry of the Environment acid rain centre in Dorset reported precipitation with a pH of less than 4.7 on 15 of those days. On four other days the pH level was below 4.0.

Are there any steps that he as the Minister of the Environment can take to speed up the initiatives that have been agreed upon in eastern Canada to combat the impact of acid rain?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member who represents an area, probably the area that is most impacted in this province by the problem of acid rain, asks a very good question. I am pleased to say that where perhaps last year at this time there was some question as to whether we would have all provinces on side in this regard, it is my understanding that all provinces are now on side and are prepared to move forward with the same kind of program, or at least a program similar to Ontario’s, to reduce acid rain emissions.

Mr. Villeneuve: What are you doing?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will take some time to answer the member who interjects as well, to say that, as he would know, Senator Mitchell said we had done more in one day in our Countdown Acid Rain program than the United States administration had done in five years.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Our program was first on the books of any of the provinces in Canada, and the most drastic reductions will be taking place in Ontario.

Mr. Black: I note that the members of the third party are very interested in questions dealing with the environment, and with their record in this particular area, I can understand why.

Mr. Speaker: And I am very interested in hearing the supplementary.

Mr. Black: Today the Toronto press reported a joint proposal by the governors of New York and Ohio to reduce sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by 43 per cent by the year 2003. Could the minister comment on the significance of that proposal for residents of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am trying to hear the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could you repeat it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The news which has been emanating from south of the border for some time does not give rise to very much optimism, but we finally have some kind of movement on the part of two governors of two of the most significant states in terms of size, Governor Cuomo and Governor Celeste. I think it is the kind of movement in the United States that can be built upon to bring about a program which has significant reductions.

There has been somewhat of a logjam both in the House and in the Senate of the United States. The administration has been less than enthusiastic to pursue this issue in the United States, so this particular initiative, which calls for some significant cuts over a period of time, is at least a step in the right direction.

It does not call for an overall cap, which means it does not project well into the future, and they are not the kind of upfront reductions we would like to see here in Ontario, to compare it to the Canadian program, but when two of these governors get together and have support from many of the other governors in the United States for such initiatives, it seems to me we have an opportunity to move forward. Those of us in Canada will be very pleased to work with all of those in the United States.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Breaugh: In the absence of the Premier, I will ask the Minister of Labour. Concerning the announced closure yesterday of Lantic Sugar in Oshawa, this would appear to be the first plant shutdown due to Mulroney’s trade initiative in Ontario. It involves 120 workers.

I wonder if the minister would agree with the assessment by the president of the company that essentially it is having some difficulty adjusting for a market share; that the American industry has been able to penetrate the Canadian market almost at will; and that the Canadian raw sugar industry has had difficulty penetrating the American market.

Would the minister agree with the assessment that this is the first major plant shutdown in Canada because of Mulroney’ s trade initiatives?

1500

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am very sensitive of course to the concerns that the member for Oshawa -- it is just Oshawa? -- has.

Mr. Jackson: Just Oshawa? That is like saying “just York.”

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would not say “just Oshawa.” It is a very important community. There are a lot of very good things that go on there.

One of the regrettable things is the announced closure of Lantic Sugar. There are some 120 employees who are going to be affected by that layoff. Obviously, one has to be very concerned for the community of Oshawa when a layoff of that size is announced. I am given to understand that programs for employment adjustment and some professional assistance to help the employees locate elsewhere are going to be put in place by the management of the company.

I really cannot answer the question as to whether this is the first example of a plant shutdown that arises as a result of the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement. I simply tell my friend the member for Oshawa that this company is not leaving Canada. In fact, the Oshawa facility is, as I understand it, the smallest of three facilities they have in Canada. They are going to be maintaining their facilities both in Saint John and in Montreal, both facilities which are much larger than the one in Oshawa.

Certainly, I agree with my friend from Oshawa that we have to be very concerned about the effect on our manufacturing capacity in this province and right around the country as a result of that trade agreement, but I would not want to give the final, definitive word on this issue.

Mr. Breaugh: The president of the company, in announcing the closure yesterday, simply pointed out that under the existing situation American refineries find it advantageous to ship refined sugar into the Canadian market and to claim a duty drawback under the United States re-export programs. It seems fairly clear to him at least that the share of the market is diminishing through market problems. They are having difficulty competing now under the existing situation with refineries in the United States and that problem will become even worse under the Mulroney trade initiative.

However much the company may try to soften the blow and relocate, how does the minister explain to the 120 families who will now be without an income this government’s reluctance to do anything of a positive, direct nature to stop this trade initiative? How is the minister going to explain to those families and to the families of the longshoremen who will be unemployed as well because they unloaded the raw sugar? How does he rationalize to them the lack of initiative on his government’s part to really stop this trade deal?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Oshawa does point out some of the reasons given by the president of the company in announcing the closure. To summarize that reason, it was an increase in United States exports. There were, of course, other reasons mentioned in that statement, including competition from Ontario manufacturers of high-fructose corn syrup and increasing consumer preference for non-nutritive sweeteners. There is a variety of factors that resulted in the closure of that facility.

He asks me what I say to those 120 families. Obviously, my heart goes out to those employees and their families. Within our own ministry, we will be providing whatever adjustment assistance is appropriate under the circumstances. The fact is, though, that this company will be continuing its presence in Canada. It will be continuing with its operations both in Saint John and in Montreal.

Once again, I say to the member I am not sure the closing of this facility in Oshawa directly relates to the so-called free trade environment that is being proposed -- regrettably, we believe -- by the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. It is my understanding that the ministry is prepared to provide the funds needed for a 24.5 percent wage over 30 months at the Dawn Patrol Group Homes in Hamilton, an 18 per cent increase over two years at Kinark Child and Family Services in Barrie and Midland, and a 30 per cent wage hike over three years at the Sacred Heart Child and Family Centre in Scarborough.

Is the minister prepared to provide the necessary funds so that the board of directors at Catulpa-Tamarac Child and Family Centre can meet the commitment of a 24 per cent wage hike successfully negotiated last year with the 55 employees? Is the minister now willing to provide that funding?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In all of these situations the local autonomous board is given funds from our ministry and, in some cases, from other sources. It is their decision as to how they are going to allocate those funds. Some put more into programs, some put more into wages and some put more into buildings. That is their decision.

We have a minimum program content that we insist upon as the ministry, but beyond that, the decision is a local decision.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I have two documents I would like to quote from very briefly.

This is from Hansard, November 16, 1987, when the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) said, “The Thom commission report is actually in the process of being translated, and when it is, it will be released.”

I have a document from translation services in response to our inquiry about the translation of the Commission of Inquiry into Residential Tenancies, the Thom commission. The answer is: “Text received for translation on May 6, 1987, approximately 175,000 words. It was requested July 31, 1987. It was renegotiated to August 21, 1987, and it was returned to the minister on August 14, 1987.”

Mr. B. Rae: One week after the election was called. Right in the election campaign.

Mr. Harris: That was right at the start of the election campaign, approximately four months before the answer to my question indicated that it was in translation.

I would ask that the House refer this question to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to determine whether the minister intentionally or whether the minister inadvertently lied to the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully and I appreciate the member planned his words very carefully and came very close to using unparliamentary language. I really think it is unreasonable for many members to plan their words. I would ask that all members be much more careful in their --

An hon. member: What about ministers --

Mr. Speaker: Order. All members, I said.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It is not the Speaker’s duty to judge the validity of the words used. I cannot make a judgement on whether any member has stated the facts correctly. I know all members are aware of that.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the same point of order. I think it is a reasonable request in the case of the information that has been provided by the Conservative caucus and the statements that have been made on the record by the Minister of Housing.

Clearly, something is very wrong when the minister can make a statement, and then there is clear evidence that the statement was presented in error in the Legislature because the minister did not know what was going on in her ministry, or the information was presented incorrectly on purpose, or the report was hidden from the public during an election campaign.

If the members of this Legislature are to operate in this place on a fair basis, if we are to be able to trust one another in this place, I think this matter must be referred out to committee and cleared up. I hope the Speaker will agree with both opposition parties, in light of the statement the minister has made and the evidence the Conservative caucus has, that this whole matter should be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, unless the minister has a very reasonable and understandable explanation that can be presented in the Legislature now.

1510

Hon. Ms. Hošek: My understanding is that the document was translated. Then it went out for proofreading, which took a long time because it is a long document, and when it came back -- this whole process was finished at the end of December -- then it was printed and was ready to be released in January.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened to the three members on the point of privilege raised by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris). I think I should take it under consideration and report back.

That completes oral questions.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, on another point of privilege: Yesterday I raised a matter with regard to the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) asking me to pay some amount of money in order to receive information from him. I brought that to your attention yesterday.

Later in the afternoon, at approximately 4:10, I received by courier a letter from the minister which had taken another six days to get from the Mowat Block over to my office here at Queen’s Park, and which said the ministry wanted to charge me $696 as an estimate. I found out this morning that the actual charge could be much greater than that if, in fact, they went through certain documents and certain things happened. I am required at their request to deposit with them $348, half of the estimated amount, if I want to receive that information.

I have one of two choices, either to pay that $348 to the minister or to appeal it to the commissioner. I was wondering whether or not you are ready to rule on this particular matter as I would like to get my request under way.

Mr. Speaker: I would be very happy to respond to the honourable member. As a matter of fact, I was prepared to respond at 1:30 of the clock.

Yesterday, in the House, the honourable member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) raised what he referred to as a point of privilege regarding his dealings with the Ministry of Education under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The member at that time alleged that he was being prevented from accomplishing his work as a member of the provincial parliament because he was being charged for information that he had requested from the ministry.

I undertook to study the complaint raised by the member because the nature of the complaint is new to this chamber, and I thought it would be wise not to come to any hasty decision in this matter.

After reflection, it appears that this matter is not a valid question of privilege, but rather a grievance that the member is raising. The new freedom-of-information act was passed by this Legislature and does not create any special privileges for the members of this House. Members are subject to the administrative workings of the act in the same way that the general public is. If members feel that they are being unfairly treated by the provisions of the freedom-of-information act, then they have other means at their disposition in order to try to amend the provisions of that act.

Furthermore, members do have privileges regarding the provision of information that is not provided the ordinary citizen by use of Orders and Notices questions.

I thank the honourable member for bringing this matter to my attention and to the attention of the House, but after due consideration I cannot find any grounds prima facie for a case of privilege. I would, however, encourage the member to use the procedural methods at his disposal as a member of this House in order to pursue his search for the information he requires.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to challenge your words on the matter, but I would like to put a couple of other things on the record for your consideration, specifically because I sat through the committee hearings on this particular bill.

It was made abundantly clear to all members on the committee that there was nothing in this act which would infringe upon the traditional rights of members of the assembly to ask questions and to seek information.

As a matter of fact, during the deliberations, an attempt was made to put forward an amendment, I believe by the member for Carleton, to be very specific about the rights of members of the assembly. It was said at the time that was not necessary, that this bill would not infringe in any way, shape or form on the traditional rights of members of the assembly to seek information.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to section 52 of the Legislative Assembly Act where the traditional right of members of the assembly to gather information is assured. In particular, I would refer you to subsection 63(2) of Bill 34, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Those assurances were given at some length during the course of the deliberations on the matter, because the point was clearly raised on more than one occasion as to what would be the impact of this legislation on our traditional right to seek information from the government. It was made clear to us that no amendment was necessary, that there would be no impact on that.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it would be wise for you to take the matter under further consideration, perhaps to even go so far as to deliberate upon the Hansards and the discussions during the course of committee, because it was made clear to me that there would be no infringement on the traditional right of members to seek information.

Certainly, it was made abundantly clear to me that there would be no such thing as charging members for information that had previously been made readily available, or if not readily available, reluctantly available, by the government to opposition members.

I do think there is an important point of principle that has to be determined here, and I would ask you, sir, to take those two matters under consideration and perhaps give us some more consideration on the matter.

Mr. Harris: I support the comments that have been put forward by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). The system is not working. There clearly is a problem with the privileges of members in being able to obtain information. I really think the suggestion put forward by the member for Oshawa is a good one.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the members for their suggestions.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, are you not going to respond to the member for Oshawa or the member for Nipissing in terms of their suggestions?

Mr. Breaugh: He has the matter under consideration. I can see it in the twinkle in his eye.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for the information and I will certainly consider it further.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I seek unanimous consent to revert to statements. The Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) has a statement she would like to make. Obviously, if the consent is given, it would provide for opposition response.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent and, if so, how much time for responses? I would like to know.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I suggest that certainly the opposition should be allowed up to five minutes to respond

Agreed to.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

DIALYSIS SERVICES

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Haemodialysis or renal dialysis is a treatment which first became available 26 years ago. It cleanses the blood of patients whose diseased kidneys are unable to filter out impurities. These patients generally require three-hour treatment sessions two or three times a week.

There is a growing demand for dialysis services because our population is ageing and the rapid advances in medical technology are detecting more and more cases of kidney disease annually.

Today, we are responding to this need for more dialysis services for the residents of Ontario. I am pleased to announce the approval of $6 million to provide for the expansion of home and hospital haemodialysis services in Metropolitan Toronto, the Ottawa region and the Algoma district.

I am announcing the approval of:

$1,225,000 to Toronto General Hospital for six haemodialysis machines and three replacement home haemodialysis machines;

$1,059,000 to Toronto Western Hospital for six haemodialysis machines;

$1,036,000 to St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto for nine haemodialysis machines;

$984,000 in annual operating funds to expand the haemodialysis program at Plummer Memorial Public Hospital in Sault Ste. Marie;

$570,000 to Ottawa Civic Hospital to expand dialysis services in the short term for Ottawa residents, and

$1,121,000 to Ottawa General Hospital to expand its regional home haemodialysis services.

1520

I am also pleased to announce today that my ministry has granted approval to the Ottawa Civic Hospital to begin planning its major expansion and redevelopment of its regional haemodialysis program. This project is expected to be completed within three to five years.

While today’s announcement will go a long way in helping to meet the needs of people with kidney disease, we acknowledge the fact that we cannot stop here, and we do not intend to. My ministry is continuing to monitor the need for dialysis services in Ontario communities and it is in the process of studying our population’s long-range needs in this area. I have asked every district health council in Ontario to determine the local dialysis needs for its communities and have requested them to report back to me as soon as possible.

RESPONSES

DIALYSIS SERVICES

Mr. Reville: Clearly, the official opposition welcomes the approval of $6 million to provide for the expansion of home and hospital haemodialysis service. We have a few problems with the distribution of the provision of these moneys. Clearly, the bulk of the money is going to downtown Toronto teaching hospitals.

The oft-repeated statements of my beloved, but not forgotten, colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere come to mind. I am talking about my colleague from the 33rd Parliament who stood in his place over and over again and talked about the need for dialysis services in Scarborough, which I do not see included in the list --

Mr. Wildman: If he were still here it would have gone there. It would have gone to Scarborough if he were still here.

Mr. Reville: -- although perhaps people from Scarborough will travel to Ottawa to do this and, as my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) points out, the current member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) has not been mentioning the renal dialysis problem in that area.

I think I should point out, too, that the $6 million provided for one part of the health care system is considerably more than is spent on all the community health centres in Ontario in a year. Clearly, we should not be facing an either/or situation; we should be facing a both/and situation. This is another example of increasing the technological side of health care without increasing the health prevention and promotion side. I am sure the minister will want to rise, as soon as she can come back to the House, and correct that imbalance.

Mr. Eves: It is a pleasure for me to respond to the statement of the Minister of Health. I acknowledge that this is indeed a good start in the area of kidney dialysis, one that is a little bit overdue but much needed, and I am glad to see that she has taken this initial step.

I would also hope that the minister would take similar steps in upcoming days with respect to cardiovascular surgery and the problems we have across the province with respect to that, orthopaedic surgery, perinatal care and obstetricians. It is somewhat of a contradiction, I would say, that we are asking hospitals at this time to eliminate deficits, to cut services as a result of eliminating their deficits, yet here we are handing out a bit of a crumb, I suppose, with respect to kidney dialysis.

The minister will be very well aware of the statement of the Ontario Hospital Association on June 3, which she was not here for earlier this afternoon when I quoted it, so I will repeat it: “Half of the province’s 222 hospitals will be compelled to take serious economy measures to avoid budget deficits this year. Many of them will have to close beds, curtail certain health services and reduce staffing costs. OHA expects the Ministry of Health to be prepared to accept public responsibility in situations where funding constraints make service cuts unavoidable.”

So far, the Minister of Health has refused to listen to our requests for her to accept her responsibility for the mess that hospital services across the province are experiencing. That is the reality that the hospitals have to deal with out there right now: they have to cut services.

By the minister’s own admission, 50 per cent of the hospitals that have filed their budgets have filed them with deficits, despite her urging -- in fact, direct orders -- to the contrary. It is quite obvious to their boards of directors and their administrators that they cannot provide the essential health services that they require for their particular areas without projecting a deficit, and it is quite obvious that the minister is going to have to do something about the base funding for those hospitals.

While this is a step in the right direction with respect to kidney dialysis only --

Hon. Mr. Conway: “A crumb.”

Mr. Eves: -- there are many other problems out there in the health care system that are going to have to be dealt with, and dealt with immediately, by the minister and her ministry.

To answer the government House leader, $6 million in a budget of $13 billion, if the minister would like to figure out what percentage of that budget it is, would be minuscule, far less than one per cent. I am sure that even the House leader, with his limited mathematical knowledge, could figure that out.

Mr. Pollock: I welcome this news on dialysis machines, but on the other hand, there was a survey which I have mentioned about extended care beds that was taken in the Quinte area. Bancroft hospital was supposed to get 11 of those beds, and I understand that the minister has completely ignored that recommendation. Now she comes up with this idea that she has asked district health councils to recommend whether they need dialysis machines. If she totally ignored that other report as far as extended care beds are concerned, what is to say we are going to actually get these particular dialysis machines if the district health councils actually request them? That is a major concern.

I talked to the former Minister of Health and lobbied for a dialysis machine in one of the Peterborough hospitals, and I spoke in this House on one particular occasion before. It is certainly needed in that eastern Ontario area. I certainly hope the minister takes into consideration placing a dialysis machine in one of those Peterborough hospitals. I do not think we need to lobby the district health councils; I think the minister has the authority to do that.

Mr. Harris: While the minister is on dialysis, I wonder if she can look into and explain why a constituent of mine, a senior citizen, who once a year visits Vancouver -- and up until this year, the Ontario health insurance plan has covered his dialysis in Vancouver -- this year was told by OHIP, “We no longer pay for that.” He was told that he cannot get dialysis anywhere in British Columbia. He was told that he may be able to arrange to get it in the United States, across the border. As a result, he cancelled his annual trip to visit his daughter in Vancouver. I wonder if the minister could look into why these services are not being provided for our residents here in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired. He might want to try that tomorrow during question period.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council signed by 67 persons from Windermere United Church in Toronto, which reads in part as follows:

“We wish to express our objection to any expansion of Sunday shopping within our community and our province.”

I have others, if members will just stay put for a moment.

I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council signed by 69 persons from the village of Milverton:

“We, the undersigned, oppose further expansion of Sunday shopping and ask our municipal council in Milverton to protect Sunday as the traditional day for rest, worship and family activity.”

A further petition signed by 85 persons from the United Church of Canada in Brigden:

“We, the undersigned, oppose further expansion of Sunday shopping and ask you, our elected officials, to protect Sunday as the traditional day for rest, worship and family activity.”

A further petition signed by 104 persons from the United Church Women of Middlesex Presbyterial in London:

“The United Church Women of Middlesex Presbyterial of the United Church of Canada urge the government of Ontario to strengthen and enforce legislation which restricts additional store openings on Sunday in order to maintain the traditional day of rest which Ontario residents presently enjoy.”

1530

Further, 79 persons petition from Millgrove Pastoral Charge in Millgrove, Ontario:

“We oppose open Sunday shopping in Ontario and we oppose transferring authority to legislate on Sunday shopping entirely to municipalities.”

From 39 persons from St. Paul’s United Church in Hamilton, Ontario, a petition reads, in part, as follows:

“We wish to oppose open Sunday shopping and keep it in the hands of the provincial Legislature.”

Also, from 20 persons from Moorefield-Rothsay Pastoral Charge of Canada in Moorefield, Ontario:

“Be it resolved by the undersigned of the Moorefield-Rothsay Pastoral Charge of Canada that we oppose transferring authority to legislate on Sunday shopping entirely to municipalities and we are opposed to open Sunday shopping in Ontario.”

A further petition, signed by 72 persons from Applewood United Church of the city of Mississauga, reads, in part, as follows:

“The undersigned are opposed to transferring authority to legislate on Sunday shopping entirely to municipalities and opposed to open Sunday shopping in Ontario.”

Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker. That concludes my reading of the petitions.

HALFWAY HOUSES

Mr. Fleet: I have a petition I received from the Junction-High Park Residents Association, signed by 250 residents of the riding of High Park-Swansea.

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

“To eliminate the existing local option which permits all municipalities in Ontario to reject the establishment of halfway houses for parolees. This would prevent certain cities, notably Toronto, from carrying most of the burden and the risks of these operations.”

I have signed this petition myself, in accordance with the provisions of the standing orders.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Wiseman: I have 2,000 petitions, signed by irate taxpayers in Ontario. They read 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:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

I have signed that myself as well, and we will have a couple of thousand more tomorrow.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Black: I have a petition signed by more than 100 citizens from the community of Peterborough.

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

“We, the undersigned, appreciate the fact that the government of Ontario will be holding public hearings regarding the issue of Sunday shopping. We request that these hearings be held in centres throughout the province, including the fair town of Peterborough.”

I will add my name to this.

ONTARIO HYDRO ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE

Miss Martel: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

“Whereas Ontario Hydro is presently undergoing a study to review the organizational structure of the Warren area facility, resulting in the possible relocation of the customer service and administrative department to North Bay; and

“Whereas our rural northern municipalities are small and closely knit, with no industry, limited resources and scarce job opportunities for our young people; and

“Whereas the loss of permanent and part-time job positions will adversely affect our community business, financial and social structure; and

“Whereas Hydro customer satisfaction in our area would be greatly reduced;

“Therefore, be it resolved that we hereby request the provincial government and Ontario Hydro to do everything possible to ensure that Ontario Hydro in Warren remains status quo.”

That is signed by 468 residents of the village of Warren and outlying communities which will be affected by the possible relocation. I have signed it and I agree with them.

PENSIONS DE RETRAITE

M. Cleary: J’ai une pétition signée par 24 personnes, à l’honorable lieutenant-gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de la province de l’Ontario, portant sur le calcul des pensions des enseignants retraités avant le 31 mai 1982.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRESPASS TO PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Trespass to Property Act.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Kanter moved first reading of Bill Pr 5, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Kanter moved first reading of Bill Pr 17, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Simcoe East may have some further comments.

Mr. McLean: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government is no doubt aware of the widespread outrage over Sunday shopping legislation. That outrage is coming from all corners of the province and from retailers, labour, church groups and especially from municipalities, which do not want to be stuck with deciding the issue.

A recent questionnaire I sent out to my constituents in the riding of Simcoe East reflects that widespread opposition to Sunday shopping in Ontario. I received more than 800 responses to my survey, and when asked, “Are you in favour of Sunday shopping?” a whopping 83 per cent of those respondents answered no.

My questionnaire went on to note that currently in Ontario Sunday shopping is permitted only in certain designated tourist areas or in small stores employing less than four people. When asked if they thought the current system is too wide-open or not open enough or about right, 68 per cent of the respondents answered that it is about right.

My next question noted that those opposed to Sunday shopping say it will lead to added pressure on families, particularly single-parent families. A staggering 74 per cent of the respondents agreed that open Sunday shopping will lead to added pressure on families.

I then noted that those in favour of wide-open Sunday shopping say that, in addition to being more convenient, it will create more business and employment, and 74 per cent disagreed that it will increase business or employment.

I also put forward the question, “If you are not already required to work on Sunday, would you be willing to do so?” It is really not surprising to me that 75 per cent answered no.

Many of my colleagues in the third party sent out a similar questionnaire concerning Sunday shopping, and I know the reaction was just as negative as the response I received, and in some cases even more so.

1540

This sensitive issue has been debated now for approximately two years. During that time the government chose not to consult with the working people of this province during its deliberations. In this instance I am referring to the people who are going to have to give up their family time on Sunday in order to work. I am also referring to those people who will be forced to give up the Sunday they would normally use to worship in the church of their choice and to the people who would normally use Sunday just to rest up for the coming week because they have to go to work on what has become a traditional day of rest for most of us in Ontario.

It is certainly incredible to me that the government has acted in such an irresponsible manner as to push this issue off on the municipalities without any consultation or thought as to the chaos this would create. When I consider the extra costs associated with Sunday shopping, its impact on families and the traditional day of rest and the lack of any gain to be had from the increase of shopping hours, I have to ask the question, why on earth is this government proceeding with this bizarre legislation? I know that, because of this government’s arrogance and uncaring attitude, I can never expect a logical answer.

I want to refer to the statement that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) made in the paper yesterday. He says, “The bill will allow municipalities to decide whether to let stores open Sundays, their hours of operation and what types of stores could open.” Could you imagine a municipality passing a bylaw whereby they wanted to indicate what types of stores would open, what types of businesses would be open? It would be total chaos.

Earlier this year, the Orillia Packet and Times daily newspaper conducted a survey of its readers. This poll showed that by a margin of 17 to 1, residents of the city of Orillia and the surrounding municipalities want to protect Sunday as a day of rest. This poll asked specifically whether people were in favour or opposed to full Sunday shopping year-round. The number of those in favour of Sunday shopping was 94 while the number of those opposed to Sunday shopping was 1,560.

The Orillia Packet and Times publisher, Jack Marshall, said:

“This was far from a scientific survey and anyone can find flaws in how it was taken. Certainly it can be argued that people who oppose Sunday shopping, who see it as a threat to their own way of life, are prepared to go to more trouble to cast their ballots than others who seek only the convenience of being able to shop Sunday. What cannot be denied is the overwhelming opposition to Sunday shopping in this poll.”

I want to read a letter that was in this morning’s Toronto Sun. It is a very interesting letter, it is very short and reads as follows:

“I am a 13-year-old Roman Catholic girl who is against Sunday shopping. Because my parents are self-employed in a business, I know that if Sunday shopping becomes legal they would be forced to open to keep up with their competition. This would mean that we would never again have a day to rest with the whole family. For years people have not worked on Sundays to be with their families and to rest. I can’t understand why suddenly all the big fuss has occurred over Sunday shopping.”

Mr. Black: Because the Tories won’t tell the truth, that’s why. Why don’t you tell the real story about Sunday shopping?

Mr. McLean: “Sunday has been a day of rest for all races, religions and creeds. It is simply a day put aside for our own benefits. If retail stores have to open, then I feel it is only fair for all banks and government offices to open too.”

Mr. Black: You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. McLean: “Let their children find out what it is like not to have their parents home on Sundays. What next? Schools open on Sunday?”

It is interesting to note that 13-year-old, writing it the way she did, really says it all. I am surprised the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) would not agree with a 13-year-old in that type of a statement. He wants everybody working on Sunday. I do not agree with that.

At least 70,000 petitions against Sunday shopping have poured into offices of the Progressive Conservative members since March and there have been at least another 30,000 sent to Liberal and New Democratic Party members. But despite the opposition that all of the polls, all of the letters and all of the petitions have indicated against wide-open Sunday shopping, the government is determined and entrenched in its decision to inflict this injustice on the people and municipalities of Ontario. What a sad state of affairs we now have in this province.

There are a number of reasons why I oppose Sunday shopping and I would like to spend some time outlining those reasons. I might add that not only are these the reasons why I am opposed, but they are also reasons put to me by retailers, labour, church groups and municipalities in the riding of Simcoe East.

Sunday shopping will impair, if not destroy, the quality of life for many families in this province. Many parents will need to work and many parents will be required to work on Sunday if this legislation becomes law. It will be especially difficult for single-parent families, and it should be noted that more than half of those single parents are women who work in the retail sector. These single parents will lose their only day to be with their children and, for many, they will have to find scarce day care services and then have to pay for them. Not only is this a difficult situation for parents, but also it will lead to an increased number of so-called latchkey children.

This frightens me because it will further weaken the quality of family life and result in potentially dangerous situations for children who cannot be watched by their parents throughout the day because they have to work. The social fabric of healthy communities depends on more than just buying and selling commodities. People are more than simply economic entities and their needs are complex.

By introducing Sunday shopping legislation, this government is ignoring this fact and is also ignoring the fact that increased economic activity will create havoc and chaos and will do more harm than good. It is beyond all reason that this government thinks it can assume that family values, personal friendships and our quality of life have a price. If wide-open Sunday shopping becomes a fact, then I say the price is too high.

The people of Ontario will also say the price is too high and they will shop around for another government. It is completely unfair and unreasonable for the government to assume that a worker’s refusal of overtime pay to be with a spouse or children represents an unreasonable attitude towards the work ethic. This legislation denies workable protection for retail employees who want and need to spend some quality time with their families, especially on Sundays, especially the most vulnerable, single-parent mothers and fathers. It wipes out freedom of choice for all retail workers in Ontario.

The rights of workers have always been looked after at the provincial government level to ensure uniformity and to ensure that workers throughout this province can share and have equal access to the same rights. However, it now appears this government has determined that regulations concerning Sunday shopping will be a municipal responsibility and we can expect to see it pass off other labour legislation such as the minimum wage, pay equality and worker’s compensation to local governments if this is indeed fact.

Also, the 675-member Association of Municipalities of Ontario is strongly opposed to the local option. It has passed a resolution against the local option on the ground that it does not make sense not to have a provincial standard on the common pause day, with appropriate exemptions.

It is interesting that all these municipal politicians are saying this and the people in this government are saying another thing. The government is using the excuse that only in a perfect world could everyone agree to a common pause day. There is no reason to extend the misery of a few, those who already must work Sundays in the service sector, to everyone.

1550

The phrase “local option” is a fallacy because the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act, Bill 113, will defeat any attempt by a municipality -- I will repeat that -- will defeat every attempt by any municipality to stay closed on Sundays. If there were truly an option, communities would have the power to resist the pressure to change.

A local option implies the ability to opt in or opt out, to choose between a law as written in Bill 113 or a municipality writing an entire new law for itself. Bill 113 does not provide this choice. Instead, it allows municipalities to constantly amend various aspects of a law, resulting in constant redefinition of an exemption today and a new exclusion tomorrow.

A simple motion in council could create an open designation based on location, size, number of persons employed or any other criterion. A subsequent simple motion in council could alter an existing bylaw by extending the open designation to one more store, to one more street, to a new development or to an entire town. It could change whether retail employees can celebrate any recognized holiday and could create open areas for certain times of the year and closed ones for others.

Mr. Faubert: Are you telling us you can’t trust the municipalities?

Mr. McLean: I cannot trust the member’s government and none of the other people in the province can.

It could change hours of Sunday or holiday shopping in all or part of the open areas. It could change the square footage requirements, rendering useless the prohibition against roping off, and alter special exemptions for types of retail businesses granted in the bill. These are currently convenience stores, pharmacies, commercial art galleries, bookstores, videotape rental stores, gas stations, nurseries and fresh produce vendors. These are just some of the many things that are exempt from closing on Sundays.

As a result of these increased municipal responsibilities, the bureaucracy will increase and entail numerous hours spent in review of applications for changes in open designations which will change the value of properties. The legislation will likely trigger contention as small municipalities adjacent to larger ones, in need of an increased tax base, attract mall owners and retailers by giving wider and wider open designations. Regional governments may fight back by granting the same open privileges.

Wide-open Sunday shopping will lead to prices increasing anywhere from 5 per cent to 15 per cent. This is because costs for labour, depreciation on the equipment, large electrical bills and doing business in general will increase. Additional Sunday service will cost money because of the transit system. We have all kinds of day care services that will have to be provided.

When you talk about this bill, you really talk about the whole province of Ontario. The public will have no voice because these proposed amendments do not contain any provisions for the public consultation, and local councils can eliminate basic protection by the simple passing of a resolution.

Bill 113 provides no mechanism to allow for local debate. A councillor can introduce without warning a motion to pass a bylaw to create or amend an open designation, and the community will not have an opportunity to examine the proposed bylaw or to debate it.

About one third of Ontario’s workforce will have to work on Sundays. I want to repeat that. About one third of Ontario’s workforce will have to work on Sundays. Are the members of this Legislature prepared to work on Sundays? We had a motion to see if they would sit on Sundays and there certainly was not much of an indication that they wanted to. I know the Speaker would not want to sit on Sundays.

Shopping may be less convenient because merchants may decide to close earlier on weekdays so they can afford to open on Sundays, as is the case in Alberta. As a result, people have no choice but to shop on weekends. The proposed amendments provide no protection for shopping mall retailers who refuse to open on Sundays. Leases may not be renewed for retailers who are already working 12 hours a day, six days a week, without opening on Sundays.

There will be no additional job growth since most major retailers will adjust their staffing by reducing full-time retail sales positions in favour of more part-time people to cover the additional hours. Most employees who work in small retail outlets have established a close relationship with their employees because the business itself requires frequent personal contact in an environment that is harmonious and void of hostility.

I happen to be one of those people who did have to work on Sundays for many years and I had to get up at 4:30 in the morning too. Anyone who knows what it is like to work on Sundays, and who has the opportunity not to have to, has got to feel what we are fighting for is the family, family life and tradition here in Ontario.

The original Retail Business Holidays Act was supported by all three parties and passed by the Ontario Legislature in 1975.

Mr. Neumann: What about all the families on family farms? They work on Sundays.

Mr. McLean: I have to be complimentary to the member who interjected with regard to farmers working seven days a week, because I happen to be one of those farmers who had to work seven days a week. Today, they are feeding more people than ever before. You can buy more food than ever before for the same wage; 17 per cent of your salary today goes for food when 15 years ago it was 34 per cent. So the farmers are still the best in the country, and I will tell you, you never want to say anything about a farmer when you have got your mouth full.

To continue, the original act provided for a common pause day with exemptions including a Saturday option or another day off. The Progressive Conservative Party commissioned a task force to study Sunday shopping in 1986 because of widespread and outright abuse of the act. That task force determined that a majority of Ontarians are opposed to Sunday shopping but are in favour of some progressive changes. This government has decided to turn its back on the task force findings and has opted instead to dump this issue right into the laps of all the local politicians. This government has no right to be in anyone’s lap, especially the collective lap of our local politicians.

I would favour some change to the existing law, such as permitting shopping on some Sundays prior to Christmas and a better definition of tourist areas, but I will never support wide-open Sunday shopping in the province of Ontario. I am not looking out for my own interests when I oppose Sunday shopping. I am just reflecting the opinions of my constituents and a majority of Ontario residents when I say no to wide-open Sunday shopping.

I indicated to the House at the start of my remarks the response to the questionnaire that I had sent out. How many other people sent out a questionnaire to find out what their constituents are saying? Do they not listen to them? How can they support this bill when the people in their ridings are telling them they do not want it?

I want to say that this government is selling out on this issue and should take its shopping bag and place it over its head and think this whole matter over. I am telling them, it would be good.

Mr. Pollock: And leave it there.

Mr. McLean: And leave it there. That is right. My colleague says they maybe should leave it there.

When we are talking about local option, it is not great to say to the municipality, “If you want to have certain stores open, you can do that,” when another municipality may want to have its stores closed. I have to refer to places like Tiny township which is right close to Midland. If the town of Midland passed a bylaw to have its stores open and the township of Tiny passed a bylaw to have all the stores closed in Tiny and on the highway strip with all the malls on it, how long do members think it would be before Tiny would have to pass a bylaw to allow those malls to open?

They say they have the local option and the municipalities can do what they like. Well, I have to tell members that if they have been in business, they will be well aware that when one area opens, the other areas have to open in competition. I go back to the city of Orillia. If it wants to pass a bylaw to have the stores open, then the malls in the township will have to do it.

I tell government members, if they think that one can be open and one can be closed, I do not know where they have been. They have probably been up there in the Muskokas with the caterpillars, taking the leaves off all the trees, and the acid rain that they have up there --

Mr. Black: You should be ashamed of yourself.

1600

Interjections.

Mr. McLean: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) is well aware of the problems they have up there. We never had problems with acid rain here until the government changed. It has just changed all of a sudden. I cannot believe it.

Mr. Pollock: It’s the gypsy moths and the caterpillars that are cleaning off the trees.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. McLean: I have to help the member out.

Mr. Pollock: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay isn’t doing anything about it.

Mr. McLean: That is right.

When we talk about Sunday shopping, this Bill 113, and Bill 114 which is the accompanying legislation, I want to say that the government will certainly get some surprises when it starts travelling the province and dealing with the people across this province with regard to Sunday shopping.

They do not want it. They have said that in the task force report our party did a couple of years ago. They have said it in the report done last year when the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) was on that task force. She said it was the chicken way out. Well, what is the chicken way out? I do not know. I have to say the chicken way out is the way this government is handling this bill. It knows it will not work and we know it will not work and the people of the province know it will not work, from the questionnaires we are getting back.

I have to say this Sunday shopping bill is going to be one of the most controversial issues over the next two years. It will be a long time before it is finally passed into legislation because it will be something like the bill that was discussed just last week with regard to the municipal elections. I have never before seen a government bring in a piece of legislation and two weeks later bring in 30 amendments to that piece of legislation.

They say: “Well, you know, we’re open. We want to have a broad mind. We want to be able to talk about these things.” I ask members, what is going to happen when the government has the 30 amendments in? How many more amendments does it need to amend the piece of legislation it has? I say shame on the government for that type of legislation. How many amendments are there going to be to this Bill 113 that we are looking at? I can see all kinds of areas to be redefined.

It says, “The total area used for serving the public or for selling or displaying to the public in the establishment is less than 5,000 square feet.” How many times is that figure going to change before this bill becomes law?

You can look all through this bill. I have to tell the House that the people of this province will say no to Sunday shopping. I am saying no to it because my constituents are saying no, and I listen to my constituents. I hope I am one of those here who brings my constituents’ thoughts to this Legislature, not like some of the Liberal backbenchers who are here saying, “We support this,” and the people in their ridings are saying no. I say shame on them.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. Black: I must confess I am puzzled. There are some people who would suggest that the member for Simcoe East is deliberately misleading the people of this province. I am not one of those and I want to dissociate myself from those words. I would not suggest that for one minute. But I am looking for some other explanation of why he could possibly be saying the things he is saying. It may well be he has not read the legislation. I could believe that and I could accept that.

It may be his leader has told him to take a certain position and to distort or twist the words so that they will have another meaning. I would not suggest that, but that could be a possible explanation. It may well be he does not understand the legislation that is being introduced. That is a distinct possibility.

All of us in this House know some facts. The first fact we know is this: under the present legislation, municipalities can, if they want, declare certain segments of their municipalities open to Sunday shopping. They can do that under the tourist exemption. They have been able to do that since 1976 and the member for Simcoe East is well aware of that fact. We also know that Ontario society has not crumbled as a result of that. Ontario has continued to be a society which respects the day of rest and respects people’s right to that.

The other point I want to make in rebuttal to the member for Simcoe East is a very simple statement, and it is this: there is in fact a provincial position and it is that stores will be closed on Sunday unless municipal governments decide otherwise.

Finally, I point out to the member for Simcoe East that we, as a government, believe very strongly that municipal politicians in this day and age have a perfect ability and right to make that decision if they so choose. It may well be that in earlier years municipal politicians were not able to make those kinds of decisions, but since the member for Simcoe East has left municipal politics, the quality of decision-making has gone up considerably.

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

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to refer to the comments made by the member a few minutes ago and his great support for local autonomy. Local autonomy works both ways. The government will not give local municipalities the power to control their land use, planning and many aspects that they want, but it saddles them with this. If it believes in local autonomy, and the municipalities tell it quite clearly they do not want to handle this issue, then it should respect that local autonomy and take it and look after it itself, but it does not have the political courage to deal with it.

They say they want the municipalities to have local autonomy to solve the issue. They know it is a copout because they cannot deal with it. They do not know how to handle it, so they throw it at the municipalities. We are going to have 700 municipalities making decisions that will be completely different, every one.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario told them quite clearly. In fact, there was a unanimous vote; there were only three that voted in favour of their proposal. Why does the government not respect local autonomy and listen to what they are telling it?

Mr. D. W. Smith: I just want to make one short comment. I always listen carefully to the member for Simcoe East, but I cannot understand how he could have got on to acid rain when he was talking about retail store hours. I want to know how many communities in his riding are open on Sunday now. It is just that I usually follow this member very closely, but today it was hard to keep up with him. If he could comment on the communities that are open now within his area, I would appreciate that answer.

Mrs. Marland: I listened very carefully to my colleague the member for Simcoe East. I think he addressed this issue very professionally and very thoughtfully. I would rather wish that some of the interjections by the back-benchers of the Liberal government might be from the same kind of base. I respect the fact that with 94 seats, it is very hard to get an opportunity to speak and perhaps the only opportunity you get is through interjections, but I would suggest, particularly to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) who kept saying at least three times, “Do you not have any respect for municipalities?” -- that is a really significant comment.

The Acting Speaker: Order. As you are aware, this is a time for comments with respect to the words that were put forward so eloquently by your member for Simcoe East. I would ask all members to --

Mrs. Marland: Well, Madam Speaker, I will comment on the words of my colleague.

The issue is whether or not we are listening to the municipalities. I would suggest that a resolution passed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario very strongly in favour of this jurisdiction of retail shopping hours staying with the province is very clearly a statement made by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere suggested that we are not listening to our municipal councils. In fact, this member for Simcoe East and the other members of the Progressive Conservative caucus are listening to the municipalities of Ontario who are saying that it should be provincial jurisdiction.

1610

Mr. Neumann: I would like to commend the member for his comments about farmers and their hard-working record in the province and, indeed, across the country. Having been raised on a farm myself, I know that farmers very often work seven days a week and, in that milieu, respected family values very highly.

I would like to know whether the honourable member realizes that the existing legislation permits municipalities to open on Sundays under the tourism exemption and whether he also realizes that the proposed bill maintains a strong provincial presence in this regard and sets the framework for provincial law.

Mr. McLean: To the last speaker, with regard to the provincial aspect of the bill, sure, we know what is there. We also know that the municipalities are going to have the option. How many stores are open in my area on Sundays, the member asks. I have to tell him that last year they had a bylaw passed to allow all the stores to open from 12 noon to five o’clock. This year they are not passing the bylaw because it was not needed, because people did not want to go shopping on Sunday, so this year they are not passing any bylaw. So there you are.

The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) indicates he wants to talk about the local politicians having the say. I have to say that if he wants local politicians to have their say, he is not listening to them. They are telling the government now that they are not interested in this piece of legislation. If the government says it wants to listen to them, why does it not listen to them? They are all saying that.

Interjection.

Mr. McLean: The member says I probably did not read the legislation. I think I have read it just about as thoroughly as anyone could, because of the interest I have in it, and the comments I am getting back from the municipalities and from the people within my riding and across the province. I have to say to members that this legislation is a disaster and it will prove to be such. The local politicians are telling the government they do not want that option. Why does it not listen to them for a change? What kind of dictatorship is this? We have a government that is dictating to over 800 municipalities in this province. They are all telling the government they do not want it and it is saying, “You’re going to get it.” Shame on you.

Mr. Kanter: I would like to rise in support of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act. In my capacity as parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), I have been privileged to speak to a few residents in Toronto, Etobicoke, London and Grimsby about this subject. I have been a guest on radio shows in St. Catharines and Toronto and I have learned -- and this will not come as a surprise to members with longer experience on this issue -- that there is a wide diversity of opinion on the subject of Sunday regulation.

I have heard views ranging from those who want wide-open Sunday shopping to those who want virtually all commercial activity, including shopping, banned on Sunday. There is a great difference of opinion among people in various communities on this issue.

Our bill responds. It responds to those who want to restrict Sunday openings; it also permits flexibility in communities where most people favour some extension of Sunday shopping.

This government recognizes there is a divergence of views on this subject. It is time for the law to reflect that divergence. We do not believe that all communities can be thrust into a one-size-fits-all type of law. Those who do believe in uniform Sunday shopping legislation are fixated with the illusion of a homogeneous Ontario, which does not exist today, if it ever did.

Our bill is consistent with a national trend towards allowing local municipalities some say in the regulation of Sunday openings. British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick all have a form of local option of Sunday regulation. Just this past week, as was noted earlier in question period, the government of Saskatchewan announced it will introduce legislation along the same lines as this bill.

The Ontario government has listened to the very disparate views of its citizens on this subject and has developed a balanced, principled response to the problems caused by the current law. First, we will retain a province-wide law requiring most stores in the province to close Sundays and holidays. Second, the new bill will be fairer and more enforceable than the current Retail Business Holidays Act. Third, there will be protection for retailers and retail workers, including those who must work on Sunday right now. Finally, regional municipalities will have the right to regulate Sunday openings, much as they already do under the tourism exemption, but they will be able to do so in a more honest and straightforward manner.

The most important section in our bill is subsection 2(1), which states:

“(1) No person carrying on a retail business in a retail business establishment shall,

“(a) sell or offer for sale any goods or services therein by retail; or

“(b) admit members of the public thereto, on a holiday.”

“Holiday” includes Sunday. This provision will sound familiar to those who know the current act because our current law has the very same clause requiring most stores to close on Sunday. Those stores which are now closed on Sunday in this province will continue to be closed after this bill is passed, unless a municipal council takes action to the contrary.

I think there has been some misunderstanding on this point. If I can point to some of the evidence of this misunderstanding, I will point to the petition introduced earlier today by the leader of the third party. The petition read that the undersigned “oppose transferring authority to legislate on Sunday shopping entirely to municipalities” and they are opposed to open Sunday shopping in Ontario.

I think the subsection of the bill which I have just read indicates very clearly that we are not transferring authority entirely to municipalities. Indeed, we are keeping the provincial framework. We are keeping the status quo. Not only are we not advocating open Sunday shopping, we are stepping up enforcement provisions. We are stepping up penalties. We are providing for an injunction to close down stores which now open illegally. A number of other enforcement provisions were pointed out by the Solicitor General in her opening remarks on this subject yesterday.

I believe we have a certain obligation as politicians, whatever our party, whatever our views on the subject, to enlighten our constituents as to what the legislation actually says. I do not think we should be misleading. I do not think we should be allowing our constituents to have an incorrect view of the legislation. I think we have a positive obligation to point out what the legislation actually says.

The new law will, frankly, not be a dramatic change from the current law but it will be fairer and more enforceable. I think that is important, because even a cursory glance at a weekend newspaper or a stroll down a main street or a shopping mall on a Sunday will show that that is not the case with the current legislation.

Under the current law, large stores can rope off, close part of their floor space and operate within an exemption for small convenience stores. One store in Toronto is a very large store during most of the week. On Sundays it has an artificial barrier through it and two doors and pretends to operate as two small stores. Other large stores might put a drug counter in one corner and claim they are pharmacies. They advertise that they are more than a drug store and they sell the same goods on Sunday that one normally buys at a grocery or a department store.

These practices are unfair to other law-abiding stores which are limited to opening Monday to Saturday. That is one of the reasons we are changing the act. Roping off will be banned. Department stores will no longer be able to masquerade as pharmacies.

I think fairness is another important component of this bill. There is an increasing number of Ontario residents -- yes, a minority but an increasing number -- who celebrate a Sabbath on a day other than Sunday. Retailers who are of the Jewish, Seventh-Day Adventist, Hindu or Muslim religions are currently at a disadvantage. They are unfairly penalized. Only if they close their stores on Saturday are they able to open on Sunday and even then they are subject to restrictions of space and staff. Under the new law, those merchants who observe a Sabbath other than Sunday will be free to open on Sunday without restriction.

The idea of a uniform day of rest was perhaps more plausible when Ontario was more overwhelmingly of one particular religious view. However, I believe the diversity of an increasingly multicultural Ontario requires us to move away from a single day for religious observance in order to respect the freedom of all Ontario residents. The need for flexibility and fairness in our Sunday regulation is one of the reasons Ontario should have this bill.

1620

There have been a number of comments about the need to protect workers under our bill. I would point out, and I believe the member from Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) referred to this in his comments, that a good number of workers, somewhat over a third of workers in Ontario, work right now on Sundays. About 31 per cent of retail workers may have to work some Sundays right now.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has already introduced legislation, which I understand he will be speaking to later this week, which will give all retail workers the right to refuse what they believe to be unreasonable assignments of Sunday work. These provisions will give both employers and employees an incentive to negotiate voluntary Sunday work. For those retailers who act unreasonably, the legislation will provide protection for their employees. No worker will have to work Sunday unless and until a referee decides that the Sunday assignment was not unreasonable.

I would like to devote the remainder of my comments to the flexibility which municipalities will have under this legislation, because I think there has been a lot of confusion and uncertainty about the idea of a municipal option.

It is important to note that about 25 communities in Ontario with a population over five million people now have Sunday shopping under the tourist exemption of the current Retail Business Holidays Act. These exemptions are found in every part of Ontario. It is wrong to state that this bill creates a local option for municipalities on Sunday openings; municipalities already have a local option.

Many members of this House are familiar with these openings. I have not heard anything to indicate that the leader of the third party, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), believes that Point Edward should give up its tourist exemption, or that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) or any members of the opposition party are lobbying for Chinatown to be closed on Sunday, or that the member from Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) -- I think he is here now -- is going to advocate that we close downtown Windsor, or the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) is demanding that Gananoque shut its stores on Sundays.

I think all members feel that the existing exemptions in their own constituencies were decisions of their local government, convenient to tourists and local residents and important to the local economy. Some of us may even shop once in a while in the tourist areas within our municipalities whether or not we are in fact tourists.

It seems to me that trying to tie Sunday shopping solely to tourism has led to some rather unusual results. In some cases, tourist exemptions almost seem to have been manufactured because of the need to accommodate local wishes. The Solicitor General yesterday referred to some of these odd results: the idea of a single fruit stand in Scarborough being declared a tourist area or a single furniture store in Scarborough being declared a tourist area.

On the other hand, obvious tourist attractions have been excluded from exemptions. Many areas are open for reasons other than tourism, but for valid reasons none the less.

Let us look at some of these exemptions. Let us look at the exemption for Chinatown in Toronto. Is that exemption really for tourism or is it because there is a substantial community in the Toronto area which has a cultural preference for shopping on Sunday?

Let us look at another example from another municipality. In the community of Thunder Bay, for example, stores are open one Sunday before Christmas to allow the handicapped to shop. It is a rather unusual situation. It is one that seems to be appreciated by the handicapped. It seems to work well in that community.

Let us look at a third example of a community that is now open on Sunday, and I refer to the small community of St. George. With all due deference to my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), I think it is a little difficult to argue that St. George is among the top tourist attractions within this province. I was actually born in and lived in Brantford, Ontario, fairly close to St. George. I have visited it a number of times. It would be my observation that the population there is perhaps not as culturally diverse as Toronto, there is probably a higher percentage of people who attend church in that community than in Toronto, and yet that community has chosen to be open on Sunday. That is their local preference.

We have a number of communities right now that are open, where stores are open in the community, based on a number of criteria. It might be serving an ethnic community, it might be helping the handicapped, it might just be local convenience. It seems to me that those reasons are just as valid as promoting tourism. I have not heard any member of the House argue that helping the handicapped or reflecting our multicultural nature is not a good reason for Sunday opening.

It seems to me that what we have to do is end a charade and to openly allow municipalities to do what they have been doing for the past 10 or 15 years anyhow; that is, allow municipalities to decide on the degree of Sunday and holiday shopping to be permitted in their jurisdictions. Communities should be able to permit openings if they wish, for whatever purpose they wish, including, but not limited to, the promotion of tourism.

I believe that local municipalities are good judges of such local needs and preferences. They already regulate retail openings Monday through Saturday. It would be more honest for municipalities to have the power to allow stores to open on Sunday and to be accountable to their citizens for that decision rather than to pretend that all Sunday openings must be tourist exemptions. I think the law must change to reflect the reality of the local option today in Ontario rather than to pretend that tourism is the only valid reason for Sunday openings.

It seems to me the issue facing this Legislature is not whether we should have a local option on Sunday openings; we already have one. The issue is whether we can have a better local option, a more honest local option, a local option which can be flexible enough to accommodate tourist areas, genuine bona fide tourist areas like Niagara-on-the-Lake, multicultural communities like Toronto’s Chinatown, progressive cities like Thunder Bay which want to help the handicapped, while still allowing those communities that wish to remain closed -- and I believe they will remain in the majority -- to stay within a provincial framework of Sunday closings.

Ontario has a long history of using local option to resolve problems for which there is no province-wide consensus. Whether the issue has been liquor licensing, Sunday sports or Sunday movies, local option has been a policy which has allowed each community to decide what is right for that community. Local option does not force a community to change its way of life; rather it allows a community to change only if it wishes to do so and only, with the flexibility of this act, in the specific manner in which it might wish to do so.

There has been much debate on this issue, on the subject of the effect of local option on the community. I think we should be candid here about the impact of this bill. I do not think it is going to have a great impact on many communities, because most stores will continue to remain closed under our provincial law, as they do now. Our legislation will buttress and support that decision, as the act will be fairer and easier to enforce.

Any community considering a local option will have to assess its effects on employment and family life and some of the issues raised by the members opposite, as have the 25 communities which already have some form of Sunday shopping. However, all retail workers, including the nearly one in three retail workers who now work on some Sundays, will have the right to refuse unreasonable assignments of Sunday work.

I think I am privileged to be a member of the standing committee on administration of justice, which will be meeting in August and September to consider this legislation. Our committee will be travelling throughout the province on this bill. I will certainly be interested in hearing concerns of Ontario’s residents.

I am particularly interested in solutions to some of the problems which may be presented. There have been suggestions about improvements to the bill. I have already heard some suggestions about clarifying the relationship between the power of the regional municipality and the area municipalities or between the regional municipality or any municipality and adjacent municipalities. I heard a suggestion this afternoon from one of the members of the third party about public notice, should a municipality wish to exempt itself from the provincial framework and therefore be open in whole or in part on Sunday. I think those are the kinds of suggestions the committee will be considering.

However, I think it is clear that the government is firm in its commitment to amend and improve the current Retail Business Holidays Act.

1630

In conclusion, our proposal to reform the Retail Business Holidays Act will be a substantial improvement over the current law. It will retain a province-wide law requiring most stores to close on Sunday. It will be fairer, more coherent and more enforceable. It will provide protection for all retail workers, including those retail workers now working Sundays. It will protect merchants from being forced to open by their landlords. It will replace the current local option, the tourist exemption, with a more honest, straightforward provision, which reflects what is actually occurring in this province.

The bill will not be a dramatic change to this province, it will not affect that many people; but it is a balanced, realistic and principled solution to problems with a law that no longer works.

We have a choice. We can ignore the problems and pretend they are not there and do nothing, or we can respond to the diversity and changing attitudes of Ontario through this legislation.

I hope all members of the House will support Bill 113.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) to know I agree with some of the comments he made on drafting legislation that is flexible and the powers given to municipalities.

I think the members should read the legislation. Subsection 4(1) says “...the council of a municipality may by bylaw permit retail business establishments to be open on any holiday or may require that retail business establishments be closed on any holiday.”

Subsection 4(3) says, “A bylaw or regulation under this section may be restricted to one or more retail business establishments or to any class or classes of retail business establishment....”

Subsection 4(4) says: “A bylaw or regulation under this section,

“(b) may limit the opening of retail business establishments on holidays to specific times or to a certain number of hours;

“(c) may permit the opening or require the closing of retail business establishments on certain holidays and not on others;

“(d) may restrict the opening of retail business establishments on holidays to specific periods of the year or require the closing of business establishments during specific periods of the year;

“(e) may classify retail business establishments....”

The government certainly has a flexible piece of legislation. How in the world does it expect the municipalities to know how to deal with it? The government cannot even define “tourism,” it does not know how to define “tourism” and it expects the municipalities to be able to address this type of legislation.

The government is absolutely, totally incapable of handling this situation. The only thing I can suggest, if it would not trigger off an election, is that the government should resign.

Mr. Harris: I thought the member’s remarks were pure, unadulterated drivel. I should just sit down and leave it at that, but I do want to comment specifically on one aspect.

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick talked about the religious reasons for the Saturday-Sunday. In my view, what we are talking about in Ontario today are family reasons, and there are two problems. School is on Monday to Friday and stores are potentially now going to be open seven days a week.

The Saturday-Sunday I recognize as a problem for the changing religious background we have here in Ontario. If the government is serious about that, it will amend the schools’ calendar to be open seven days a week and give them a choice there, because the problem is families having a day to get together. If the government is truly serious about that, which I doubt it is -- in fact, I have not heard anybody suggesting that the school week be Monday to Sunday and pick any five out of those seven -- then it really has to look at the reality of the situation that is there.

I do not think we are arguing on religious reasons; I think there are enough diverse religions in Ontario today that we cannot do so any longer. In fact, our government has not suggested it is, and the bill that is in place now is not a religious bill. It is a bill for families to try to have one day together. Without changing the school system, which I do not think members are prepared to do, it has to be either Saturday or Sunday. Traditionally, it has been Sunday, and that is what the government is interfering with and that is what we object to.

Mrs. Marland: I, too, listened very carefully to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick because at the outset of his comments he listed, I think, three or four places he had visited in the province and discussed this subject of Sunday shopping. He also mentioned he had talked to a number of people on the telephone.

I would like respectfully to suggest to this member that before he made a decision to support his own government’s bill -- in his case, I think he is the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General -- before they went to this stage of drafting this legislation, first of all they reread the all-party standing committee on Sunday shopping. If that did not satisfy them, because it may be a year-and-a-half old, they went out and asked the people what they wanted.

He mentioned he has been to three or four places. I would like to tell this member that I visited 14 centres in this province as a member of the PC task force. I must say that in 1986 I thought probably the people of Ontario would want Sunday openings. I was as amazed as the next person to find that throughout Ontario there is not a demand or an interest in Sunday openings, not even in the tourist areas because, as I will mention when I get to make my own comments in more detail, the tourist areas do not want the stores on Sundays in their resort areas.

The member says he is supporting the bill and stands up because he has been to one or two places. He might have more credibility and more sincerity had he been to more places.

Mr. Kanter: First, with respect to the comments from the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson), he noted quite correctly that the legislation is flexible with respect to municipalities. He noted that municipalities which wished to could close down stores which were otherwise open on a province-wide basis. He suggested, quite improperly in my view, that some municipalities were incapable or incompetent. Should that be the case, the provincial framework will prevail.

It seems to me, and I speak as a former municipal councillor, that the municipalities often have a very good knowledge of local situations. They have a good knowledge of whether areas should be open perhaps in summer or winter and whether some types of stores are important for the tourist exemptions. It is interesting that the current pattern of tourist exemptions is spread throughout Ontario and not limited to Metro.

With respect to the comments of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), I think it is fairly clear that the origin of the Retail Business Holidays Act was the Lord’s Day Act. There continue in the current act to be some provisions which are not fair to those who must stay closed on Saturday, with the restrictions on the way they can operate on Sunday. That is not a fair provision.

Thirdly, with respect to the comments of the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), I did not have the opportunity to be on a previous travelling committee. I look forward to that this summer, as I indicated, and I would point out that our bill has incorporated many of the provisions of the committee of the Legislature.

I note the provision about looking at the gross sales of the business and determining the amount of the fine. That was one of the recommendations of the special committee. I am pleased to see that has been incorporated in our bill in subsection 7(2).

Mr. Laughren: I rise in opposition to Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act. I rise in opposition to it because I believe it is destructive and unnecessary. It has been almost embarrassing to see what this legislation has done to the Solicitor General, who got elected to this chamber with such promise. I can recall the exemplary job the Solicitor General did on one of the standing committees in dealing with workers’ compensation problems. I always felt she was very progressive-minded and hardworking and I held out much hope for the Solicitor General.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Until.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, until the appearance of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, in this chamber.

This act does indeed require businesses to remain closed on Sundays and holidays unless municipalities provide an exemption. While members of the government argue that is simply an extension of the principle of local autonomy dealing with store hours, it really is an unfair argument to make. If, as the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) said a few minutes ago, municipalities already have the right to establish hours for stores, why was this bill necessary? If it is already in place, why is the government bringing in this bill?

The members of the Liberal caucus cannot have it both ways. Either it is a significant change in legislation in the province or it is not. If the municipalities already have this, why are they bringing in this bill? They cannot argue on both sides of this. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

As I recall, the Supreme Court reviewed the previous legislation back in December 1986 and it concluded that --

Hon. Mrs. Smith: No, the Sabbatarian exemption.

Mr. Laughren: That is correct. Under the Sabbatarian exemption, they said that the law was “constitutional as a reasonable restriction consistent with a free and democratic society.” That is what the court said.

A select committee of this assembly, as has been pointed out by other members, reviewed the whole question of Sunday shopping. That was during the time when there was a minority government in the province. As a result of those hearings held all across the province, an extensive report was written. I believe the bill to the taxpayers was almost $100,000. That committee supported the principle of a common pause day.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Based on what?

Mr. Laughren: Based on the hearings that had been held across the province, presumably.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Based on the definition of tourism.

Mr. Laughren: The Solicitor General keeps falling back on the problem of defining tourism. I admit there was a problem with the definition of tourism and defining tourism areas. We all accept that, but instead of the government dealing with that problem and working it out, it said: “We give up. The municipalities can deal with the problem.” That is exactly what the government did.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Tourism is different in every municipality.

Mr. Laughren: The Solicitor General admitted it was unworkable. That is what she said. It is unworkable. That is the kind of confession we do not think is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the member. However, we do have new provisional standing orders which allow other members to make comments or ask questions following a member’s speech. Probably we could follow those provisional orders, and the member for Nickel Belt may wish to continue and direct his remarks through the chair.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to avoid getting the Solicitor General excited again.

That select committee did not wash its hands of the whole affair. The select committee said that it was workable, that it could be done. That was the select committee and the Solicitor General was a member of that committee. As a matter of fact, that select committee said that the least favourable option would be for the province to transfer the decision-making process to the municipalities. They did not just stand back and say, “We’re not sure,” or, “This is one of the options”; they said what the government is presently doing was the least favourable of all the options, that is exactly what they said.

The present Solicitor General, who is piloting this bill through the Legislature, supported those recommendations. As a matter of fact, it is well known in this chamber, but I wonder how many people out there in Ontario can recall the Solicitor General saying that giving it to the municipalities was a chicken way out.

One minute it is a chicken way out and the next minute it is the only way to go. That is why I started out my comments by saying it was almost embarrassing to see the Solicitor General put through the wringer the way she has been put through it on this piece of legislation.

As a matter of fact, during the 1987 provincial election the Premier (Mr. Peterson) himself indicated he had no problem with the legislation the way it was then drafted. That was only as recently as September 1987. After the election, the government suddenly changed its position. I think it was December I that the announcement was made, and one has to wonder why the government did that --

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Why? No problems in December?

Mr. Laughren: -- why the government chickened out, to use the words of the Solicitor General, why it did that.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Did you know that Boxing Day was going to be on a Sunday?

Mr. Laughren: The member for Kitchener is interjecting and implying that there were problems before this bill was introduced. Of course, there were problems before this bill was introduced, but I would put to him that after this bill becomes law, and given the majority of the government I assume it will, the problems will be worse than they were before the change in the legislation.

At the beginning, when the Premier and the Solicitor General originally made the announcement that they were changing the legislation, there was a smattering of applause throughout the province. That slowly turned, until now there is an overwhelming tide against this legislation, and the government must surely regret the day that it flip-flopped on the whole question of Sunday shopping. The number of petitions and letters that most of us received on this issue is greater than we receive on the vast majority of very important issues that come before us.

Some of the members of the government have argued that it is a very honourable thing to let the municipalities have more autonomy, to give them what is known as local options, to let them decide. The government argues: “Trust the municipalities. They know what is best for their local area.”

If that is true, why is it that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario passed a resolution recently massively rejecting this legislation?

Mr. Black: Before the legislation.

Mr. Laughren: It was not passed before they knew the principles of this legislation -- not at all. As a matter of fact, the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping saw the legislation before it made its views known, and it is as adamantly opposed now as it was before it saw the actual legislation itself, because nothing has changed in the legislation that would lead anybody to change his mind about open Sunday shopping.

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: Open Sunday shopping also means Sunday working. That is why we see it as a piece of labour legislation, even though the second bill, Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, which is a separate piece of legislation and which we are not here debating today, is supposed to protect workers. We know that is simply not the case, that it is not going to protect workers. Even without Bill 114 to protect the workers, it is still a piece of labour legislation. Whether we had that bill or not, this is a piece of labour legislation.

As a matter of fact, if the Solicitor General had had her wits about her, she would have insisted that this bill be handled by the Minister of Labour, just as the subsequent bill will be handled by the Minister of Labour, because that is really what this is coming down to.

1650

We feel very strongly that there needs to be a day of rest, a common pause day. We do not see why this government is so anxious to commercialize the province even more than it is now. Why are they so anxious to turn this province into one big hive of commercial activity seven days a week? Why? Why is it so necessary?

Was there a great clamouring all across the province for Sunday shopping? I do not think so. Do the municipalities want it? I do not think so. As a matter of fact, we know that the municipalities do not want it.

It is not as though only people involved in retailing will be affected by this legislation. People involved with all sorts of services -- municipal services, fire protection, traffic control, the industries that provide services to the retail sector -- will be affected as well, along with the disruption in families. This is a major piece of social and labour legislation.

Why the government feels that it needs to expand the commercialization on Sundays is beyond my comprehension. We all know there are all sorts of activities going on out there now. We know that service stations are open now, restaurants are open now, theatres are open now, sporting events are open now. Why do they need to expand it even more? The government has not answered that question.

Mr. Speaker, you may recall -- I am sure you do -- that the government prosecuted Paul Magder, who was opening his fur store on Sundays. This is what the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) said in those days, when he was defending the conviction of Paul Magder. He said:

“The evidence overwhelmingly indicated that there was a need for a legislated pause day due to a reluctance on the part of many industries to regulate themselves in accordance with this objective. There is an accompanying erosion of the opportunity for retail workers to participate in leisure activities with family, friends and others. A uniform pause day was needed to allow the pause day of retail workers to coincide with that of their school-aged children, spouses and friends and community events. A quality common day of recreation was needed for as many of Ontario citizens as was possible.”

That is the Attorney General of the province, the person who many people regard as the primary source of political expertise to the Premier. If he can argue like that one day and the next day enthusiastically support a piece of legislation that completely contradicts that view, what kind of expertise or advice is the Premier getting from his Attorney General? It is truly remarkable.

I received a letter from a woman in Sudbury -- and I did not realize how many letters I was getting until it was brought to my attention that there was a stack of them there. This is a letter, not from a constituent of mine, but a woman who lives in Sudbury. Her name is Elizabeth Barnes. Talking about Sunday shopping she says, and I wish all members would think about this, “Not only does it put a burden on retail workers and their families, but it also widens the gap between the more affluent in our society, namely, those who have jobs allowing them to take the whole weekend off, and those in service occupations who don’t.” I like that.

What Elizabeth Barnes is saying is that once again we will have the low-paid, part-time workers servicing those who have the bucks to spend on the weekend. It will not be the high rollers who are working on Sundays, you can be sure. It will be people working at low wages, and very often it will be part-time people.

Speaking of those people, the bill provides inadequate protection for those who do not want to work. The onus will be on the employees to show that to have to work on that Sunday is unreasonable. You can imagine, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, as an employer yourself, that enlightened though the employer may be it is not an even match when an employee approaches the employer and says that he really does not want to work on Sunday, even though the employer has asked him to do so. That is not an even match. The employer determines whether or not that employee will continue to work there.

The best comments I read on that had to do with the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping, which put together a very good critique on the problems of workers refusing to work on Sunday. The bill says that they can refuse to work if they have reasonable grounds to do so. However, and I am quoting now from the CAOSS brief -- after the coalition had seen this piece of legislation, I might add, not before.

Dealing with the question of reasonable refusal to work on a Sunday, they say: “However, for a successful complaint the refusal to work on Sundays has to be reasonable. Bill 114” -- the subsequent bill -- “defines what a referee may consider reasonable and, therefore, what is reasonable for an employment standards officer, a worker and an employer.”

Let me give some examples of how this bill will put workers under the gun: “It is unreasonable for a union member to refuse work on Sunday if there is a collective agreement that addresses Sunday work, even if that agreement does not deal specifically with a set of personal circumstances. Therefore, the protections that might be afforded to nonunion members are not given to union members.

“It is unreasonable to refuse Sunday work if a premium is paid for that work. The Ministry of Labour makes the assumption that family values and personal friendships, fellowship and relaxation have a price, that to refuse time and a half pay to be with a spouse or children, demonstrates, in the government’s view, an unreasonable attitude towards the work ethic.” That is what this bill means.

“It is unreasonable to refuse to work Sunday if the employee has also refused on previous Sundays. It is unreasonable to refuse Sunday work if the employer claims that an employee is irreplaceable. It is unreasonable to refuse Sunday work if the employer claims it is an emergency.” Well, one could drive a Mack truck through the loopholes in this bill and its companion, Bill 114, in terms of protection of workers who do not want to work on Sunday.

The Minister of Labour, who is no friend to labour as we are quickly discovering, should be ashamed of himself. I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour is here, sitting where he should be sitting, among Tories.

The Attorney General had this to say about retail employees. This is the Attorney General speaking again, not me: “Retail employees are generally nonunionized, have low job mobility and few, if any, mechanisms for the redress of grievances. As a group, retail workers are not in an economic position to negotiate a satisfactory financial arrangement for Sunday work and are subject to subtle economic pressure to work.”

The Attorney General has made his position clear on how little protection there can possibly be for retail workers who do not want to work on Sunday, and then he goes ahead and endorses this antilabour legislation. The Minister of Labour will stand in his place and argue that there will be protection for workers who do not want to work on Sundays.

When that day comes, I want to see the Attorney General stand on his feet and reaffirm what he had said previously about how little protection retail workers have, because I want to see the Minister of Labour and the Attorney General in agreement on Bill 114, the subsequent bill. They cannot have it both ways over there. The Attorney General is arguing one day that we cannot provide proper protection for retail workers and the next day he is going to be supporting the Minister of Labour. That is total hypocrisy on the part of this government.

You tell me, Madam Speaker, how you can have the chief law officer of the crown standing up one day and saying it is impossible to provide proper protection for retail workers and the next day have the Minister of Labour introducing a piece of legislation that pretends to do what the Attorney General has just said cannot be done.

If that is not hypocrisy at the highest level of government, I do not know what is. That truly is hypocritical on the part of this government. It is getting a little wearisome to see this government time after time having promised one thing during the election last year and delivering something different after the election.

1700

If they think they are getting away with it -- I suppose in the short term they are, but I want to tell them their days have got to be numbered if they keep up that kind of performance. The public out there understands what they are doing with this bill.

This caucus and this party is adamantly opposed to this bill. We are not trying to talk out of both sides of our mouth, like the Attorney General is doing. What do members think the Attorney General is doing? One day he says it cannot be done and the next day he supports it. If that is not machiavellian and hypocritical, then tell me what is.

I am also concerned about the small business community. We know that if a municipality exempts a particular part of its jurisdiction from Sunday closing, that puts enormous pressure on the rest of the community. If, for example in Toronto, Harbourfront is open and the Eaton Centre is open, can Yorkdale be far behind? Can the Don Mills shopping centre be far behind?

I do not really know the names of all the big plazas in Toronto and I do not apologize for that, but we know that if a municipality makes an exemption for any part of its boundaries or its jurisdiction, it puts enormous pressure on the adjoining areas.

I represent part of the regional municipality of Sudbury and I know that even if the city of Sudbury puts in a restriction and says, “No, we’re not going to allow open Sunday shopping,” and one of the area municipalities right on its boundaries decides that it needs a real boost in its local economy, it will, we can be sure, make an exemption. That area will open up and then that puts pressure on the city.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: What’s changed?

Mr. Laughren: We are not talking about tourism. We are talking about a shopping centre or any store. Besides, the government members keep saying, “What’s changed?” If nothing has changed, why do we have this bill?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: You know there is a big difference.

Mr. Pelissero: Because it’s more fair and it’s more enforceable.

Mr. Laughren: It is more enforceable for the municipalities.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: You are the one who says there’s no change. You are saying there’s no change.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. Laughren: We know that when this bill becomes law there will be enormous pressures from the people who own the malls, the shopping centres, not the individual retailers. It will be the mall owners who will say to the individual stores, “We want you to be open and the terms of lease say that you will.” I know the bill says that if there is that kind of language in the lease it is deemed to be invalid under this legislation, but what happens when that lease expires at the end of one, two, three or five years and a new lease is being written? We can be assured that that will not be in there, that they will not even get that lease renewed.

There is enormous pressure on the small retailer. Just as it is not equal competition between the employee and the employer when it comes to Sunday shopping, it is not equal between the small retailer and the mall owner when it comes to negotiating on Sunday shopping either. We know that. We know who has the economic clout in this society. It is not the retail worker and it is not the small business community that is in the big malls either. The government knows that. It is being rather silly with its arguments.

The argument that some larger retailers have used, that it will increase revenues, is surely the hollowest of all arguments. How do you increase your profits, for example, if instead of spreading the business over six days you spread it over seven? How does that enhance the position of the small business community? It does not. That is why they are against this bill.

I think of the problem of hiring staff. I am sure that this is going to simply increase the number of part-time, low-paid staff in the retail sector. You can be absolutely certain of that.

I think of the enormous pressures on the municipalities. It is possible for a municipal councillor simply to rise in his or her place at a council meeting and move a motion, the debate could be through and it could be all over that same night, and you could have a municipality opened up for Sunday shopping all in one evening, in one evening’s determination.

We in this caucus are adamantly opposed to this legislation. I will conclude by quoting again from the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping. CAOSS has this to say:

“In these two bills we have an expressed local option which virtually guarantees wide-open Sunday shopping throughout Ontario; a promise for local public debate on Sunday opening that provides no mechanism to ensure public participation; a labour protection act that offers no protection to labour; a Sabbatarian exemption that requires a public declaration of private beliefs; a promise of increased enforceability by a fine of $50,000 that is not really a $50,000 fine; a promise of protection to tenants of malls so they will not be forced to open on Sundays that is no protection at all; and, finally, an argument that these bills will produce greater equality and fairness while in fact always putting the burden for protecting the common pause day on the party in the poorer bargaining position, whether worker, retailer, municipal councillor or tenant.”

I am pleased to join the rest of my caucus colleagues in opposition to this piece of terrible legislation.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to compliment the member from Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) on one of the finest speeches he has given in this House in some time.

I would especially like to make reference to his comments regarding the small business community. I happen to have owned and operated a small retail business for over 30 years and many of the comments that the members made are very accurate and to the point. I wish someone over there had some business experience and they would not have drafted this type of legislation.

I would like to just make one reference to the Solicitor General. A short while ago, a few months ago. -- and it has been quoted -- she admitted that this so-called municipal option will eventually lead to wide-open Sunday shopping because of the domino effect. This basically means that if one municipality votes to allow wide-open Sunday shopping, economic pressure will force neighbouring municipalities to take the same action or risk losing new businesses and customers. That is the point the member has raised and it is a point that is very valid. Not only municipalities become involved in this domino effect but retail merchants get caught in the same domino effect, because if your opposition opens up you have to open in defence or you lose business.

The member made the other point that if there is X number of dollars to be spent in six days and you spread it over seven, you do not pick up any more dollars but you do incur a lot of extra expenses. You end up with less service for the customers. It is a more costly service and there is less profit for the retail merchant, plus the fact that he is forced to open on a day when he should be with his family.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I am interested in the various views of the philosophy of hypocrisy that are coming from the other side of the chamber. I think that one thing should be made clear right from the beginning, and that is that we are not in this legislation bringing about any kind of a --

The Acting Speaker: I would request the honourable member to be very careful with his words. I noted that the member from Nickel Belt was very careful with the use of that word.

1710

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Yes, and I am simply commenting on my interest in his views.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I think the way the member for Nickel Belt used the word “hypocrisy” was quite different than the member for Kitchener. The member for Nickel Belt specifically referred to the government being hypocritical. The member for Kitchener has specifically referred to the member for Nickel Belt for being hypocritical and I think he must withdraw the remark.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: He calls me one thing. It is all right.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Clean up your act if you expect other people to.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Why don’t you shut up for once, Vince? You are an absolute bloody disgrace with your mouth.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Play the game any way you want to play it.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That’s right. You have taught me all I need to know, Vince. If anybody plays the game, you do.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: You are afraid to come out for a debate on Sunday.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Your yapper is going all the time.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If ever there was a yapper in this place, it is you.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Madam Speaker, what I said was --

The Acting Speaker: Order, order. You are taking up valuable time with respect to this debate. I would request the member for Kitchener to withdraw his comment at this time and to proceed on his views with respect to the comments that were made by the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: The comment I made was that I was interested in the philosophy of hypocrisy that was being expressed by the opposition. If that offends the House, I will certainly withdraw that.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. Please proceed.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Thank you. I think it should be made very clear that the transmission of power to the municipalities took place under the government of George Drew in 1950 when the Lord’s Day (Ontario) Act was passed. For the last 38 years, the member for Nickel Belt and the other members of this House who have lived in this province have lived under a municipal option. We are not changing that. To suggest that it is being transferred from the province to the municipalities is an inaccurate interpretation of the legislation. I think that should be made clear to begin with.

Secondly, we are in fact attempting to improve this legislation. That is basically what we are going to do. There are things in it which are changing. The member for Nickel Belt was around here at Christmastime when he knew, surely, that there are laws in Nickel Belt just as there are laws in other parts of the province. There are stores that are staying open in contradiction to the law, so we are changing that law. We are going to toughen it up so that there will be stronger penalties on stores that stay open. There will not be the chance to move back and forth between Saturdays and Sundays and so forth.

We are bringing in, with amendments to the Employment Standards Act, the most progressive labour legislation this province has ever seen and I think it is incredible that the NDP, of all parties, should be opposing this. I wish, in responding to this, that the member for Nickel Belt particularly would address himself to something specific in this bill which we promised and on which we changed our promise, because I have not heard any argument whatsoever to that effect. Thank you very much.

Mr. Wildman: I just note that the member for Kitchener said the government has changed its promise. I would like to say that is just another way of saying they broke their promise. I think the whole exchange indicates that too many cooks spoil the broth.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: On a point of order: I did not indicate that the government has changed or broken a promise.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order but a point of explanation.

Mr. Reycraft: I listened with interest to the remarks by the member for Nickel Belt. I congratulate him on the delivery of his remarks but I must say I am disappointed in the content of his speech; not surprised, but disappointed.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is the best speech you have ever heard.

Mr. Reycraft: It may have been the best-delivered, but it certainly lacked in content.

He asked why we are bringing this forward if it does not change things. It does change things. It eliminates the loopholes that exist in the current act. Stores will not be able to rope off, drugstores will not be able to masquerade as drugstores when in reality they are department stores, and it increases the penalties substantially, from $10,000 to $50,000. Those are some very good reasons this legislation has been brought forward.

The Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired. There is no further time. Does the member for Nickel Belt wish to respond?

Mr. Laughren: First of all, I would like to thank the member for Wellington for one of the most perceptive and lucid statements he has ever made in this chamber and thank him for his kind remarks. I will give the remarks of the member for Kitchener the time they deserve and ignore them completely, and talk rather about the select committee on retail store hours and just sum up what that select committee said, which all of the Liberal members supported.

This is what it said: “These recommendations were guided by the principle, unanimously supported by the committee, of a common pause day in Ontario. The recommendations seek to achieve a system of greater fairness and equity in the regulation of retail activity in Ontario on holidays, including Sundays, while permitting acceptable retail activities on these days in our modern society.”

That was the select committee on retail store hours. It was signed by, among other people, the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli), the member for Lambton (Mr. Smith) and the member for London South (Mrs. Smith).

When I see that unanimously endorsed by the members of the committee and then I hear the Attorney General make his comments, which are totally different one day from another day, and I hear the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) make her comments on Sunday shopping which are totally different one day from another day, while I know it is not nice to use the word “hypocrisy” in this chamber, Madam Speaker, I am sure you will understand why one is tempted to do so from time to time.

Interjections.

Mrs. Marland: In rising to enter into this debate on Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, I would at the outset draw the attention of those members of the House who are currently present to standing order 24(b), which says, “When a member is speaking, no other member shall interrupt him” -- or her -- “except on a question of order.”

It is probably significant to point out that the standing order in fact says “shall not interrupt him.” I have added the editorial “or her.”

Mr. Ferraro: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Is the member for Mississauga South indicating, by reading that, that we should not do what she did when the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) was speaking?

The Acting Speaker: That is a point of explanation. The member for Mississauga South has the floor.

Mrs. Marland: The very reason I raise that is that when the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick was speaking, there was complete silence in this House from all sides. It is rather significant, and I would suggest that if the members of the Liberal government, whose bill we are discussing, can show such respect and consideration to their own members when they are speaking, they might do well to consider the standing order and to extend that courtesy to all of us who are taking part in this debate.

Having said that, I think careful note should be taken that I have deferred my comments on other people’s speeches until the two minutes when it is allowable and appropriate to comment on other people’s speeches.

1720

Let me say at the outset of this debate that I wish we had a government in this province which could set realistic and responsible priorities. I deplore the fact that we are here today using valuable time on a debate which really should not be needed if this Liberal government would face up to its responsibilities.

Yes, the present Retail Business Holidays Act is not working totally, but instead of making amendments to make it work, this Liberal government has taken the cowardly way out. It is shirking its responsibility and it is passing off its job to legislate in the best interests of the people who live in Ontario.

Mr. Epp: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I believe that language is completely unparliamentary and I believe the member should withdraw it.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member for Mississauga South was not suggesting in any way that this government was prevaricating or doing anything dishonourable like that. She was just indicating that government members are cowards, and that is not unparliamentary.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga South has the floor. Would she continue on Bill 113, please.

Mrs. Marland: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think Hansard will show that the word that I used was “cowardly,” which in fact does describe the Liberal government on this subject of Sunday shopping. I also said that the government is “shirking its responsibility,” which I happen to believe it is. The people I represent also believe this government is shirking its responsibility by not dealing in the best interests of the people of Ontario with this subject of Sunday shopping. It is passing it off to the municipalities.

How ironical it is, when the Liberal government has the unprecedented mandate with its 94 seats, that it cannot even deal with something as simple as the subject of Sunday shopping. It has failed its first test because it chose not to handle it but chose to pass it off to the municipalities. It is very interesting and necessary to emphasize that these are the same municipalities which last August, through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO, said they did not want it.

Also, I feel that this government has been misleading in terms of the fact that when its members were campaigning last August and in the first week of September, they did not mention in their campaign that this is what they would do with the subject of Sunday shopping.

So here we are using valuable time in a debate which simply is not required. If we had a government that would listen to the people it represents, if we had that kind of government in Ontario, the people of Ontario would know they would have a government that would deal with issues in terms of priorities.

There is only so much time for legislation to be processed through this House. I suggest we could be here today discussing important priorities such as the homeless and solutions for them, health care, hospitals and the delays for much-needed surgery. We have hospitals that today are facing funding problems. We have thousands of children in portable accommodation in schools because we have underfunding in terms of capital needs for school construction, particularly in the city of Mississauga where we now have close to 1,000 portables between the public school system and the private school system.

It is sad that this government does not see the very real priorities. I have a number of instances in my own riding where special education programs are needed for children, special programs that involve some residential requirements. We need nursing home beds. We need chronic care beds.

Need I go on? The list is very long, but instead of discussing those needs in terms of human priorities for the people of this province, here we are discussing a nonbill. We are discussing something that does not even need to be discussed. This is an unnecessary debate, because if the Liberal government had chosen to use the legislative process to make the necessary housekeeping changes -- for example, amendments to make the present legislation workable, which was a recommendation of the all-party committee on extended shopping hours -- those amendments could easily and very quickly have been processed. We would all have supported the increase of fines and we would have supported stronger punitive measures.

I will not name him, because he has already had far too much free publicity, but the only reason the furrier in Toronto took the route he did was that the penalty was not severe enough. What did he have to fear? He had about $2-million worth of free publicity and goodness knows how many millions of dollars’ worth of business in the last three or four years by flouting the existing laws. There is a pure example that the remedy for that situation would simply have been to make some amendments to the present legislation.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: You say we should have left him alone?

Mrs. Marland: Madam Speaker, I would appreciate it if the Solicitor General would wait for her two-minute rebuttal of my speech rather than interrupting as I go along, because I promise the Solicitor General that I did not interrupt her yesterday and I will show her the same respect when she is speaking.

The Acting Speaker: I request the member for Mississauga South to continue with her speech, please.

Mrs. Marland: Just briefly, to look at the history of what brought us to this unnecessary debate today, in that history, of course, we have to include the Progressive Conservative caucus task force, which I was fortunate to be a member of. When that task force started its tour around the province in 1986, although I personally was opposed to Sunday shopping and I personally am a strong proponent of a common day of pause, I thought that probably in 1986 the people of Ontario would be ready for wide-open Sundays.

I must tell the House, having visited 14 places with that task force, I was amazed to find that even in the tourist resort areas, and not ones that are proclaimed but ones that exist -- such as Niagara-on-the-Lake, Peterborough, Orillia, Kenora, the Lake of the Woods area, and Cornwall, which include two border towns that compete with open Sundays in the United States -- in all of those places we were told, “We do not want it.” I thought in a place such as Peterborough, for example, with resorts and cottagers, it would be wanted.

What we found in fact was that people said to us they do not shop on Sundays in those areas for two reasons. One, if they are cottagers who are up for the weekend, they are returning home on Sunday. If they are cottagers who are up for a vacation time, usually the weekend is the time when other people come to visit them and they are entertaining on Sunday.

Then the commercial resorts and hotels told us that because Saturday is the day they change the people who come to stay at their resorts, Sunday is a day that people want to rest. They have been travelling. If they have just checked in, they want to acclimatize themselves, and Sunday is the day when they want to just sit and do nothing. They find that on Sundays people do not want to get up and go out shopping either.

We also found that in many of the other areas that are nontourist and nonresort, people simply did not want to be open or to be required to work on Sundays. We also found that other people simply did not want to shop. Certainly, when that Progressive Conservative task force reported, it was very clear what the priorities of the people of Ontario were at that time.

One of the quotations I would like to give from the Progressive Conservative task force on extended shopping hours is as follows:

“Many of these businesses have continued to open on Sunday and receive their weekly summonses. Their cases have been adjourned by the courts, pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in four cases (three convictions and one acquittal) which were argued before it in March of this year under the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

1730

That excerpt from the 1986 report is dealing with the subject of the violations. The funny thing is that even with the new legislation, there will still be the same processes and there will still be the problem of challenges to the courts. So this legislation does not change anything. That was a problem. It was a problem that was recognized by the task force. But this legislation does not improve that.

The most important part of that report was the first recommendation that reads as follows, “The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government.”

Lest we think that perhaps the Progressive Conservative task force was biased politically, I would like to now refer to the report of the -- I am sorry. One other recommendation, of course, of that task force was, “The general principle of a common pause day should be maintained.”

It is very clear that after that task force, which was organized by the Progressive Conservative caucus of this Legislature, took place, it would follow that perhaps the government, understandably, would want an all-party examination. That is how the select committee on retail store hours was established and it too toured the province. As a matter of fact, it too went to some of the same places our PC task force went to.

How interesting that the select committee on retail store hours -- I emphasize again that it was an all-party committee. The first recommendation of that committee was that the jurisdiction for the Retail Business Holidays Act and other legislation relating to retailing on holidays should remain with the provincial government.

It really is still beyond my comprehension that as recently as a year and a half ago, the Liberal caucus and Liberal members of that committee unanimously supported that recommendation. The Liberal Party was the government in Ontario at the time of that touring, all-party committee.

It is difficult to discuss this subject without a lot of repetitive rhetoric, but because the Liberal government does not listen and does not hear, it is necessary to state some of the very obvious areas of concern.

I have personally presented in this Legislature over 10,000 petitions. What has really amazed me among those petitions has been a tremendous representation of a cross-section of ages. They are not all older people; they are not all “people you would assume want a common day of pause for religious reasons.” The concern about open Sundays goes across all colour, race, religion and creed. I think it is very significant that all ages are concerned about this subject.

I would like to speak briefly about the local financial impact on my municipality. People who might occasionally like the convenience of Sunday shopping, if they already find that convenience stores and 24-hour drugstores are not sufficient and want a little extra, have to know and be forewarned that they will be paying for it. We certainly will have higher costs on merchandise because companies cannot provide seven-day shopping without it being a higher cost. They have to pay the salaries, the lighting, the heating and everything else that goes with having a business open; added insurance would not be the least of those costs.

We will be paying more for whatever it is we want to shop for. I say “we” in the royal sense of those people who might marginally be interested in Sunday shopping.

There is also another area of higher costs and that is on our local property taxes. I would like to tell you, Madam Speaker, that in the city of Mississauga, the cost of introducing Sunday shopping in the transit-cost area alone has been estimated to be $24,000. Also, in the city of Mississauga, there has been an estimate of the cost of bylaw enforcement. Obviously, if you are going to have a change in any legislation, you are going to have to have bylaw enforcement. In the city of Mississauga that is $74,000. That totals $100,000, just as an estimate for what it is going to cost the local property taxpayers in Mississauga.

Certainly, for the region of Peel the subject is just as grave as for the city of Mississauga. In fact, I would like to quote the regional chairman, Frank Bean, who is reported as saying:

“‘While Ontario Attorney General Ian Scott originally promised nobody would be fired for refusing to work Sundays, the legislation says something quite different,’ according to Bean. ‘If there was a dispute about an employee working on Sunday, the issue would be resolved by an arbitrator who would have the power to impose payment of back wages if he felt an employer had been unreasonable in his request.’ Asked how he felt about the region making the decisions on Sunday shopping, Bean said, ‘We told them 1,000 times no, but here it is anyway. Both regional and municipal councils feel the province should make the decision on Sunday shopping, since the control of retail hours rests with the provincial government.’”

This provincial Liberal government is not listening. I would like to talk about the fact that this government is not listening in spite of the latest Gallup poll. It is funny, because generally governments are quite concerned about reacting to what it is the public would like them to do.

It is my understanding that a Gallup poll in the Toronto Star on June 3, 1988, indicated that 46 per cent of Ontarians oppose Sunday shopping. Also, this same Gallup poll indicates that 48 per cent of Ontario residents believe Queen’s Park should decide the issue. Even if they are opposed to Sunday shopping or they are not black and white on that issue, they are still very strong when 48 per cent of the people say the issue must be decided by Queen’s Park.

These amendments fly in the face of earlier Liberal promises to support a common pause day. It is significant to remind the Liberal members that when their party was in opposition, they were against expanded Sunday shopping, and during the 1985 election campaign and up to November 1985, the Premier stated categorically that the Liberal government would not abandon the common pause day.

Well, not only has this Premier abandoned the common pause day, but he has also abandoned the people. I have to ask, who can trust this kind of Premier? Despite the widespread opposition from labour, retailers, church and quality-of-life groups, municipalities and the 300,000-plus membership of the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping, the Liberals have forged ahead.

We also know that this is an open government. I would just like to talk about the fact that there has been no consultation. This government has consistently maintained that it will heed public opinion and consult with all concerned groups, but in typical Liberal fashion, the government has not kept its word. It certainly has not listened and it definitely has not consulted.

The proof of this is the fact that the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping has been refused an audience with the Premier. In fact, on March 21, CAOSS sent a letter, with copies to the Attorney General, the Minister of Labour, the Solicitor General and seven senior Liberal aides, requesting a meeting with the Premier, but the Premier did not even give the courtesy of a reply -- not even a reply, let alone the meeting. Not once did the Premier meet with CAOSS, nor did he meet with any of the quality-of-lifers and church groups who, combined as the interfaith committee, drafted a public statement to elicit some form of reaction from the government; still the government refused to budge. Again I ask if this is open government.

1740

The Premier’s only movement has been a computerized form letter in response to an earlier letter from the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping, dated February 10. In this form letter, which the Premier issued two months later, on April 7, he stated: “No new legislation has been introduced as yet, and we are currently consulting with a number of groups on this important subject. Please be assured that your views will receive my careful consideration.” The coalition and the opposition parties ask the government, whom did it consult and how does total evasion constitute careful consideration?

If the Liberals have an open and consultative government, what then, I ask, is a closed one? How can they ignore all of those people, and why? Even if they have their own mindset as a government about what they want to do on this subject, I think those kinds of numbers of people -- over 300,000 people in this province -- have a right to be heard; they have a right to be listened to. To echo the words of CAOSS, I want to say that the proposed Sunday shopping legislation represents bad policy, bad legislation and bad politics. It is literally unfair and unenforceable for the following reasons.

The quality of life for families will be impaired. I happen to stand here in the Legislature today as a believer in the nuclear family. I have also to acknowledge that where there are children in Ontario today, they attend school from Monday to Friday; so what days are we going to have left for families to be together? Many parents will need to work. Particularly difficult situations will arise for single parents who work in the retail sector, more than half of whom are women. They will have lost their only day to be with their children. For some, they will have to find and pay for additional day care services. Not only is this bad for parents, but an increased incidence of latchkey children will further weaken the quality of life for children in Ontario.

CAOSS’s quality-of-life statement emphasizes that the social fabric of healthy communities depends on more than buying and selling commodities. People are more than simply economic entities and their needs are complex. Increased economic activity will wreak more havoc and do more harm than good in this sense.

I would like to emphasize that, apart from the nuclear family, I have found from talking to the people in my riding that the young singles, the teens, the so-called yuppie singles between 20 and 35 years of age, also support a common day of pause.

The proposed legislation denies workable protection for the retail employees who want to spend time with their families on Sundays, particularly the most vulnerable, single-parent mothers and fathers, and it obliterates freedom of choice for all retail workers. About one third of Ontario’s workforce will have to work on Sundays, and this is due to the inevitable ripple effect. As retail stores open, other industries will have to increase service; for example, transportation, police forces, day care, hospitals and other related industries.

When this government wrote this legislation, I really have to wonder to whom it was listening. I have to tell members that after 15 years in politics, I know that people who are elected to represent the interests of their people do not get elected when they do not represent their people. I have to ask whom this government is representing. Who is it that is asking for this legislation? What voice? Where from?

How can this Liberal government ignore all those petitions, all the petitions that both opposition parties have tabled in this House? Where are the petitions on the other side of the issue? Where are the people who are asking for wide-open Sundays, and from now on, where do we go? Oh, yes. That is right, of course, we go on the road. We take the road show. We spend $200,000 or $300,000 touring this province. Again, we have another committee.

I shall be very interested when the public hearings come back and when we find out what the opinions are. The point of the matter is that if this government was sincere and listening to the people, we would not be here discussing this bill today. It would have listened to the petitions, instead of which this government has chosen to ignore the petitions.

If they could table the same number of petitions in favour of Sunday shopping, then we might have a discussion in this House, but it is very strange that the Solicitor General has chosen to ignore those petitions. In fact, it is more than strange in my opinion, but I will not refer to any other words.

It is very sad that we have a government that will not listen to the people.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: You are misinforming the public.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Marland: Yes. We are informing the public after the fact. We are saying to the public: “We will ignore your petitions. We will ignore the voices that we are hearing from. We will go ahead and we will draft legislation and then we will go out on the road and ask them what they think of it.” The very fact that we have not heard from people who want Sunday shopping speaks for itself.

It is very significant that there are many members of the government caucus in this House who have themselves presented petitions on behalf of their constituents who are opposed to Sunday shopping. It is very significant that they have chosen to support their own government bill, which we know will result in wide-open Sunday shopping. I wonder how their constituents are going to feel about the fact that they have gone to the trouble to collect petitions and signatures, only to have this government ignore them.

In closing, I want to quote from this brief from the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping.

“If we are to protect the interests of families as the primary building blocks of society, we must take steps to avoid increasing the pressures that fragment families. Wide-open Sunday shopping would give further emphasis to the illusionary philosophy that material prosperity alone will bring about happiness and wellbeing.

“Historically, in Canada, Sunday has been considered to be a family day and a day to touch basic human needs such as rest, relaxation, recreation and companionship and, for many, a day of worship. This common pause day helps people to keep the rest of the week in perspective and it has a restorative effect on the human spirit. Such a common day of rest for the family and other individuals is built on freedom from the usual demands made by the marketplace. It frees the family to be together, to relax, to relate to one another and to neighbours, to visit the sick and the lonely. It strengthens family and social bonds.

“The primary concern of government in this matter should be the protection of the most vulnerable: those whose economic need, social situation or family status could turn them into a class of Sunday workers serving the convenience of those who are fortunate to have the day off.”

The only added comment I would have is that where CAOSS is talking about family in its comments, I know it is also talking about members of families who are single and those people who still want to be able to visit their relatives and their grandparents and have a sharing within that family setting, and also the young people who want to be able to recreate together on Sunday because it is a common day of pause. It is a day they will know they can look forward to, whether it is for skiing or another sports activity, winter or summer, or just pure visiting. They know they will be able to do it, because their friends, their relatives and their family will also share that common day of pause.

1750

It is with regret that we have to go through this exercise, but fortunately for the people of Ontario, some of their voices and some of their concerns will be heard on this issue through the two opposition parties. Tragically, the Liberal government chooses on this issue to ignore the people of Ontario, who have very loudly and very clearly said, “We do not want wide-open Sundays.”

They have not said they fail to recognize the weaknesses with the present legislation, but like all bills, it can be improved with amendments. The amendments this current legislation should have had should have addressed the fines, the punitive measures and also the problem with local jurisdiction in terms of tourist area. None of those things was impossible to correct. None of those things would have been impossible to improve and make enforceable.

Instead of that, we have a blatant example of a government ignoring its people, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and the end result is that only on the shoulders of the two opposition parties is the burden to try to make this government listen.

I really wonder what would happen if there were a free vote in the Liberal caucus, as I know there will be in the Progressive Conservative caucus, in order for everyone to represent the opinions of the people who elected them. If any one of the Liberal caucus members has petitions from people who say, “Give us Sunday shopping,” then I think they should table them. They have no right to ignore the people of Ontario, and that is what has happened with this issue, which I think is a black mark in the day of the Ontario Legislature in representing the needs and wishes of the people of Ontario.

Mr. South: I would agree with the member for Mississauga South that we, the government -- and I do not know that we are the royal “we” that she referred to -- but in all seriousness, we will learn much from listening more closely to the opposition. They made some very good points. I want to recommend especially and commend the member for Nickel Belt, the member for Wellington and the member for Mississauga South, who have made some very good points.

We all want to get to heaven; what we are arguing about is how we are going to get there. When most of us listen to this issue and when we realize the implications, I do not think there are too many of us who want open Sunday shopping. How do we bring it about, or how do we get what it is that most of us agree we want? We had a bill and the government decided that, rather than amend it, it would do away with it and introduce another bill. That may be right and it may be wrong. The fact, and the reality we have to deal with, is the bill which the government has introduced.

Can we amend it sufficiently to satisfy the majority of us and, I suggest, the opposition? And this is where I ask them to listen to us. Let’s think of the amendments we could make to this bill and make it acceptable to us all.

I suggest there are two areas of concern. There is the municipal option, the municipal responsibility to bring in a bill; why are we so apprehensive about that? I would suggest we are apprehensive because in many cases, I believe, a small municipality can be bought off.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Wildman: I would like to commend the member for Mississauga South on her presentation. I listened with interest to the comments from the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South), who indicated that most of us were opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping and that the government was interested in amending the bill. I am glad to hear that, and we will be looking forward, if the bill passes second reading, to the amendments that will be brought forward. I would hope that, during the second-reading debate, the ministers who are responsible for the legislation will indicate what kind of amendments they are proposing.

I think it is important to recognize that all of us have to work to make legislation effective. As the member for Frontenac-Addington indicated, we should all be listening to one another; so we will be listening very attentively to the proposed amendments that will be brought forward by the government, and I would hope it will make clear what they are during the second-reading debate.

In reference to the member’s analogy that all of us are trying to get to heaven and we are just arguing about how to get there, I like more a comment that was made by one of the leading members of his political party, the Honourable Jean Chrétien, who said, in his terms, “We are all trying to get to heaven; the problem is nobody wants to die.” The problem is that this government is not prepared, at least it has not been up to now, to tell us what steps it is going to take to actually make it possible for us to reach Valhalla.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to commend my colleague and friend the member for Mississauga South for making clear some very, very important points about the local option.

It is always interesting when we hear some of the Liberal back-benchers all of a sudden, for whatever reason, coming out from under the cloak of secrecy that they seem to have been pledged to and starting to speak their minds, saying they do need a number of amendments to make this particular item of legislation palatable to themselves and to the people they represent, as the Solicitor General in her other incarnation as a member of a committee that went across the province and said, “We do need a common pause day,” fully agreed.

As a matter of fact, some people were saying some words that were almost unparliamentary, and the Solicitor General did say that the chicken way out was exactly what she announced a week or 10 days later. That is the kind of attitude we now have, and I was very pleased to hear the member for Frontenac-Addington express concerns that are being expressed right across the back benches of the Liberal government. I hope more of them speak up because, next time around, the coattail of the present Premier may not be there for them to ride on.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Frankly, I enjoyed the speech of the member for Mississauga South. I always enjoy it when she speaks in this House. I often do not agree with her and, of course, I did not agree with the content of what she was saying today.

It startled me actually, Mr. Speaker, that she began -- you, of course, were not in the House when she began, but she began her remarks by reading the standing orders, imploring other members of the House to pay attention rather than to interject. I noted she was asking that of all the members in the House. I looked over to her side of the House and I noticed that one other member of her party was sitting there listening to her speech. But I did listen to the speech, and I thought that, in her generally eloquent way, she had missed entirely the real thrust of this debate.

Let’s just look at the core of what she said during her speech. If you look at it and tear it apart -- and I think it needs tearing apart -- she says that the government was not listening to the people of Ontario. I myself, during the development of this legislation, sat on perhaps seven different occasions with representatives of the group she quoted from so often, the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping. I met with Gerrit de Boer some seven times to hear out his views and to help ensure that his views were crafted into the legislation.

We did listen. We heard the people of the province saying, “We want fairer and more effective regulation of the business of Sunday retailing.” The bill that the Solicitor General has presented gives the people of this province that very thing.

Mrs. Marland: I think if anything good happened today in this whole debate, it was the words of the member for Frontenac-Addington, who said in reflecting on his government’s own bill: “It may be right. It may be wrong.” I think that is singularly significant, because then he went on to say, “We are apprehensive.” I am quite sure that member is being totally honest, because if I were a member of a government in any province in this democratic, free country of Canada that did not listen to the people, I too would be apprehensive.

I think the honesty of the member for Frontenac-Addington should be closely respected, because he said that it may be right or it may be wrong, and it is wrong. It is wrong to ignore the voices of the people of this province. It is wrong to ignore the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and it is wrong if the government does not care enough to listen.

It is very interesting for the member for York Centre (Mr. Sorbara) to say that he met with members of the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping. I would have thought that of all the groups the Premier has time to meet with and of all the groups that are voicing concerns of many different needs across this province, the Premier would have had time to meet with a group representing 300,000 people.

I think if we believe in open government, which I hope is why we are all here, we will be responsible and honest enough to say, “Yes, we will at least listen.”

On motion by Mr. Ferraro, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

June 7, 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO HYDRO ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE

SEXUAL ASSAULT

VISITOR

AIR QUALITY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

DAVID LEWIS SCHOOL

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRESPASSING

EDUCATION REVIEWS

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

RESPONSES

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

TRESPASSING

EDUCATION REVIEWS

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

TRESPASSING

EDUCATION REVIEWS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

LIBERAL TASK FORCE ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ACID RAIN

PLANT CLOSURE

LABOUR DISPUTE

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

DIALYSIS SERVICES

RESPONSES

DIALYSIS SERVICES

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HALFWAY HOUSES

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ONTARIO HYDRO ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE

PENSIONS DE RETRAITE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRESPASS TO PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)