Hansard Transcript 1988-Jun-09 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should endorse recommendation 82 of the Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in February 1987, which states that no changes in the method of election or in the composition of municipal councils or school boards be permitted after January 15 of an election year.

Mr. Breaugh: Many of us who have been members of the assembly have also had the opportunity to serve the electorate at the local level. We are familiar with the workings of school boards and municipal councils and we bring that tradition of service with us here to the Legislature of Ontario. It follows then that many members are not only experienced in but very interested in the workings of local government and have a respect for the process at that level. We are often struck by the differences in the ways that different levels of government work.

One of the most startling things that struck me when I first arrived here was to see the budgetary process, having come from a municipal background where our budgetary decisions were made collectively and openly at an open council, where we were used to receiving submissions from the general public about the building of roads, sidewalks, schools, parks, trail systems or whatever and having to face the electorate straight in the eye and say yes or no to the proposal.

One is immediately struck by the very opposite process when one arrives at the Ontario Legislature, where the Treasurer traditionally strikes his budget and makes all his decisions in secret and then announces it, so that even government members, sometimes even members of the cabinet, have no knowledge of what is in the budget. There are great differences between the two processes.

Many of us welcomed this report on municipal elections, in part because it brought an air of refreshing change to the process. I think both opposition critics were invited to attend before this committee. I am aware that they consulted widely in the municipal field, in the formal organizations, and that they invited people who were interested observers and active participants to help them to prepare a rather substantial report on the whole process of elections at the local level.

It was refreshing to see them table a pretty comprehensive document. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that not every member here agreed with every single recommendation, but we did, in large measure, agree with the thrust of that report, that two or three major things were happening.

First, there was finally a recognition by Ontario that municipal governments have evolved over the years into some pretty sophisticated governing mechanisms. One of the things we are struck by when we do even a casual survey of what they are like is the differences that are there. To compare, for example, municipal government in the city of Toronto with municipal government in the township of Vespra is really quite a comparison. There are quite different circumstances in serving a very different constituency and doing so in a very different way.

For many of us who are observers of the municipal scene, one of the great strengths of municipal politics is its ability to adjust, to put together a form of local government that is appropriate to the local needs. There is always some arguing around the edges of whether somebody is overgoverned and whether the response at the local level is appropriate to the needs of its local citizens. But that is the kind of testing measure that is there, and there always will be some tension between how local government is organized and the needs of its citizens, because those are changing all the time.

Where I live, we are probably one of the most overgoverned people in the free world. We have four levels of government that we can readily identify, and if one throws in school boards, we have two more of those. We have an elected public utilities commission, we have an appointed conservation authority and we have an appointed harbour commission. In my community, we can identify about seven different levels of government that are visible, and that is not addressing oneself to the invisible ones which are also there.

We are aware that local government is important to us, that it is increasingly important that our people understand the process and that the process adapts itself on a regular basis to meet new needs. Almost all members who live in growth areas will be able to recount stories of local governments that have changed dramatically in the last four or five years. There are municipalities in the region of Durham, where I come from, for example, that have really gone in less than a decade from being small villages that serve essentially a rural population to being large urban centres.

We can identify little places like Newcastle and the village of Pickering that not very long ago were just that -- villages in a rural area -- and now have a tremendous expansion of urban growth. Those municipalities are trying to respond as best they can to the needs of a new constituency, one that has grown up around an older one. They do try to change the way they represent the population, the way they service the population, the hiring of staff, the way they process official plans, the way they process plans for subdivisions and the way they provide fire protection and a multitude of services. I think all of us have come to have a respect for local government.

This report attempted to identify some changing needs, one of which has come to the fore this year, because in the mystical way that this place works, reports of this nature are tabled one year and then considered by staff of the various ministries for an appropriate period of time and eventually we begin to see legislation come forward which implements some or all of those changes. That is happening now.

1010

When we first saw this report, many of us welcomed it with open arms. There were recommendations here that addressed some long-standing needs at municipal government, particularly those around election expenses where we have had a growing problem. The newspapers are full of it these days, of questions of how people finance local election campaigns. How is it that the mayor in the city of Toronto will probably spend something like $250,000 in many election years now, and in many rural municipalities the mayor or the reeve of a municipality may not spend $100?

There are different circumstances. Part of what this report did was try to identify how to put this wonderful mix of different types of governments together. One of the things they did identify was this resolution that I have chosen to put on the floor of the chamber this morning. Basically, it was the centre of a great deal of discussion in the preparation of the report; that is, how do you put something together which addresses the needs of the city of Toronto and its urban political environment and a rural township like Vespra or one of the many other townships that are around Ontario that have local government? There are somewhere around 800 different versions of what municipal government will be.

One of the things that they settled on -- and it is the heart of this resolution -- is that very simply, whenever we make changes, we need to provide municipal governments with lots of lead time. When we do that, federally or provincially, for example, when we make one change, when we do a redistribution, change the shape and size of the boundaries and sometimes give them a new name or create new ridings, it is generally held around here that about a year and a half to two years is required to accommodate that change. We are simply recognizing that we need to give people notice that political organizations sometimes have to regroup and set up new riding organizations, that electoral officers have work to do in preparing the rolls, putting together the boundary maps and setting up new polling subdivisions. We are recognizing that there is a fair amount of advance work that has to be done prior to the change being implemented.

The recommendation I put in front of the members this morning addresses that. Although I suppose we could rant and rave about the evils of government and all of that, I really do not want to do that. What I would like to do this morning is to set the pattern for the future. We can all go into the fact that this government has introduced a number of legislative changes this year that will have an impact on this fall’s municipal elections.

Who cares what the reasons are? Whether it was ministry staff not being able to produce the legislation early enough, whether it was the schedule of the House business, whether a bright idea came to the floor at the last minute, whatever that reason was, I prefer to set that argument aside, focus on the future and say that from this point on, let’s observe this recommendation. Let’s simply say municipal governments need some time.

Many of us will be able to attest to the simple fact that a lot of our municipalities can take the proposed changes that have been put forward in legislative form this year and implement them. I do not think any of us would give the members an argument about that. We should also put on the record this morning that many of them are going to have difficulty.

They are going to have difficulty responding simply because they are not all set up to do business the way the city of Toronto is. There are many rural areas, for example, where they virtually have no staff, where the staff for the entire municipality consists of a part-time person who keeps records for the local council, and that is it. When we talk about a legislative change in the way they conduct municipal elections this fall and the changes introduced in June of an election year, like everybody else, they have their down times in July and August; so they are really going to have a couple of months to get ready for these changes in the fall.

I hope, and I am sure, all of the municipal councils that are affected by these legislative changes are going to do their best effort to accommodate the changes. They will try as best they can to respond to the changes in a new school board -- one of the changes that has been proposed -- a redistribution of how the local seats are allocated, a reallocation of the number of local seats that are there or a new proposal for election expenses or disclosure at the local level. They will try their best to respond. They will try to accommodate a new enumeration system.

All I am saying is that they are going to have some difficulty in doing that. It will not surprise me, as one member of the assembly who has been around for a while, to hear that they are going to have trouble with that. This fall we can anticipate that there will be some local councils around Ontario that are going to be confused about the process. If it is not the council that is confused, worse yet, it may well turn out to be the electorate.

In Toronto, for example, which is perhaps one of the better ones to choose because there is a full urban, municipal process at work, if you are part of the electorate in the city of Toronto this year, you are going to have to look at a ballot that has a new allocation of seats for both the local council and the school board, which changes the boundaries for the various districts they represent. It is going to cause more than a little confusion. Throw into that mix a new enumeration process and that adds a little more confusion. Throw into that a new election expenses component and there is a little more confusion.

The end result may well be that there will be some widespread difficulty in understanding how all of these changes happened at the same time. The recommendation of the committee basically addresses that. It does no more than simply say, “Give sufficient lead time so that you can implement these changes.” We went through the process, for example, in deciding whether there should be a resolution or bill put forward on the matter. It is difficult to design a bill that would be binding on another parliament; so I thought the most straightforward thing to do would simply be to take the existing recommendation from this advisory committee and put that in front of members.

The purpose is not to embarrass anybody this morning. The purpose is to put on the record some advice for the government in the future, to simply say that timing becomes something that is critical. There are legislative changes here that I, personally, think are long overdue and I regret somewhat that they are put in place in this kind of a time frame. Election expenses is one that comes to mind that I, for a long time, along with a lot of other members here, have been advocating.

We are not arguing that this change should not have taken place. We are simply trying to point out that it is going to be difficult to implement that for many municipal governments. Some can handle that change. Some have been working with the ministry for quite a period of time getting ready for the change. Some will have had a lot of warning and some, I know, participated in the recommendations made to the minister on how those changes should come about. But there are a number of others who are going to have problems with it.

The sad thing is that this puts in front of us a decision that is an awkward one, and that is that there are changes being proposed we would like to see happen, but because they have been brought in at a late date, they are going to cause confusion and cause some problems.

I suggest to members that it would be wise simply to support the resolution this morning. I know a lot of time, effort and work went into the report. It struggled with the notion of the different circumstances that exist in different municipalities. Its solution, it seems to me, was the commonsense one, to simply say, “You can do almost anything if you give enough notice to the municipal level of government and you can implement almost any kind of change with enough notice.” They are not asking for a full year’s notice. They are basically saying, “If you tell us by the middle of January of an election year what the new rules will be, we can all get ready and accommodate that.” It seems to me that was good advice when the report was tabled and it is good advice now.

We have just gone through a series of legislative changes that, whatever their merits might have been, one of the things that is going to be true about them is that they are going to cause some difficulty in getting into place this fall. I do not believe it was the intention of any of the ministries that proposed any of the changes to cause that problem. My understanding of them is that their overriding concern was to bring forward the legislative change. They hope it has been done in a way that can be accommodated.

Quite frankly, if only one major change had been proposed, I do not believe there would have been any difficulty. The difficulty may simply be that there is a variety of ministers bringing forward legislative proposals that have an impact at the same time. By itself, one change could have been accommodated without question; half a dozen poses a little more difficulty.

1020

I would put the resolution for members’ consideration this morning simply on this basis, that it is a good idea in the future to bear in mind that when the ministry is proposing legislative changes, it gives to the municipal government about as much advance time as it would ask its own government when it implements a redistribution of the ridings, and that is about a year and a half.

For the most part, I do not think there is anyone in Ontario who would argue that if the government put forward one legislative change and we have notice of it by the middle of January, every municipality in Ontario could not accommodate that. The government has made it just a little more difficult by adding to the mix several other changes at the same time.

I hope members contribute to the debate in that spirit. I have tried to restrain myself and not rant against the follies of this government too much this morning. I will do that later on today. I know members are disappointed in all of that; but I do think that it should go on the record here. It is one of the quirks of the way this process works that we have never really had a formal debate on this report, despite all the work and effort and organization that went into it.

I would advocate that it would have been a good idea for us to do that and to take a resolution like this one; to say that, in future, although we do not want to bind the government -- because I think all of us would recognize that once in a while there is going to come a need in the middle of June in an election year to make a legislative change and I do not want to preclude that -- what I want to lay down today is a simple guideline that says, “Under normal circumstances when we are going to make some change that will affect a local municipal election or a council or a school board, we will try to accommodate that by giving reasonable notice.”

That is what the resolution is all about. I hope that members take it in that spirit and I will be interested in their comments. I will save a couple of minutes for a response at the end.

Mr. Cousens: I think we all know that this is an important subject, especially with the number of bills that will affect the municipal elections this fall and that are going to affect everyone in Ontario. I can understand the intention behind this proposition that has been placed before the House by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). I am wondering how it all came about.

The member for Oshawa was probably sitting in his office one morning and his secretary called in and said, “Mr. Breaugh, the House leader is on the phone.” When he answered the phone, the member said, “Yes, Sean,” and his own House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), said: “No, it’s me. It’s your own House leader. I am calling to remind you to get your ballot item ready for the Legislature.”

The member for Oshawa said: “Lookit, I am working on my one-liners for this afternoon. That takes a lot of preparation to get ready for the House, and I am very busy doing that.” His House leader said, “No, you will embarrass the New Democratic Party again if you do not come forward with a ballot item.” He said: “Oh, my goodness, I have not done this. I have not thought about it.”

Then, as he was coming up to the House, who did he bump into on the way but the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann), the former mayor of that town, and the member for Oshawa said, “I just know what I have to bring up.” When he saw the new upstart, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he said: “That is where all the bad influence is coming on the minister. The minister is capable of better decisions than he has been working on. What they need to do is have some common sense brought in there.”

Now, we cannot legislate common sense. Yet that is exactly what we are trying to do here, bring some element of control to a ministry that is sort of going out of control. So the member for Oshawa was inspired. It is one of those few moments when he had his opportunity to put something on the record.

There are many important things that members bring forward in the House and he decided that that would be his, to try to bring some kind of limit to a government and what it is trying to do in implementing legislation that is going to have such an impact.

I think it is self-evident to anyone who has been involved in municipal government at any level and at the provincial level that the provincial government should have a period of time in which it allows the electorate and the municipal councils and those governments that are working so effectively within the province at least to get ready for their election campaigns.

All the different bills that have been brought into this House have been a deluge as far as those people who are outside looking in are concerned, and they are saying, “My, what impact is it going to have now?” We had Bill 106 before this House. It was before a committee and it was given third reading yesterday. Bill 106 is going to have a significant impact on the municipal elections this fall, on municipal spending for politicians; yet it was retroactive.

When it was brought into the House it was retroactive to January 1. I mean that really was in a sense saying, “We are going to legislate what we want in this House.” It made no sense at all. Certainly in this party we tried to express that view and the government backed away from making it effective on January 1, but it will be effective when it is proclaimed.

There are so many examples that had to really bother the member for Oshawa. They had to bother myself and they have to bother anyone who is concerned with a strong electoral system. We are a democracy. As a province that has been proud of its democratic heritage and the years in which we have promoted this democratic right, we should at least keep our fingers off that democratic process during election year, unless it is absolutely necessary. In that way, those people who are out there are not going to feel that they are being twisted or pulled or rules are changing while they are in the process of trying to present themselves, present their issues and present a campaign.

That is what we have done in this House this year. The significant bills that have come forward have not been all that well thought out beforehand. The very bill I just mentioned, Bill 106, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Municipal Act, had 30 amendments brought forward in committee by this government. There were 30 amendments presented by our party. There were no amendments by the New Democratic Party. But the fact is there were some 60 amendments to consider in committee.

All 30 amendments by the government passed. That is because they have a huge majority and were able to push it through. They were even able to push through this bill in spite of the many, many letters and people who said, “Please do not try to change the rules of an election campaign and of municipal elections in an election year.”

I just have some of the letters here but I want to put them on record. We have a letter from Gloucester, Ontario: “The public, the politicians and the municipalities must be afforded ample opportunity to reflect, debate and consider the potential impact of Bill 106 prior to its implementation.” They are really asking that the bill not be passed so it goes into effect for this election year.

The Plympton township council asks that there be no changes this year. The corporation of the city of Cambridge wrote a similar letter in which it asked the government not to proceed with the implementation. They say the timing of Bill 106 is ill conceived and they go on to say why it is ill conceived and how it is not good if the Legislature pushes it through so close to municipal elections.

The municipality of Neebing says: “Bill 106 and any other legislation that impacts upon the upcoming municipal elections should be withheld from received royal assent until after the November elections. Should this bill receive assent prior to November, insufficient time would remain for municipal staff to familiarize themselves with the new legislation.”

That is the point. If municipal staff are going to have insufficient time to be familiar with all the new rules and regulations, how much more difficult is it going to be for the general electorate to have time to consider these changes? How much more difficult is it going to be for the candidates who want to run in municipal elections this fall, on November 14, if these changes are coming in at a time when they do not fully understand them? The 130 members in this House have a chance to consider them, but not the eight million people out there in the province of Ontario. Good for the municipality of Neebing.

The city of North York comes forward. They sent a letter as well to the standing committee that was considering this bill. Their first point was that, “The province of Ontario be requested to defer implementation of this legislation until the 1991 municipal election.” I mean, when you get the city of North York coming against the Liberal government, you really start to know that you have hit a hot point.

There are more municipalities in this province that are saying, “Let the municipal legislation that is going to affect elections in the province of Ontario not be changed in the year of election. Let there be a time when you do not have to be looking over your shoulder and anticipating future and other changes.”

I think that is the intention that the member for Oshawa has in his bill. Unfortunately, his bill does not say just that. But fortunately, I was listening carefully to his remarks and he is saying it is more of a bill to state the intention that the government should not, unless absolutely necessary, bring forward changes in the Municipal Act or Election Act that would affect municipal politicians in that election year. Unfortunately, his bill does not say that.

1030

We are talking about a year in which this House has been very busy affecting the future of municipal governments. We had Bill 106, which has now passed, and I think it is going to be a discouraging bill to people who want to run for municipal government, especially when it was almost made retroactive and it is going to affect them so soon before an election.

I also know that Bill 125, which was given royal assent just very recently -- on June 1, I think it was -- again has a big impact on how trustees will be apportioned and represented. We had Bill 77, the trustee representation act, which was passed on April 11. Then, in this year alone, on February 11, the Metropolitan Toronto council was recreated. The seventh largest electoral body in Ontario was recreated in the year in which the election is going to be held in which those people who will run for Metro council will be elected to office.

I know that this government wants to make its mark, but let it make a good mark. Let it do it in a way in which everyone from the province will have a chance to understand the full intentions behind its bills and its acts. Unfortunately, when it leaves so short a time for a bill to be read, has first, second and third readings and be finally approved, there will probably not be the kind of debate on it that should take place. There has been a huge hurry to get it through in this House. I know that creates a problem for the electorate. For that reason, I will be supporting the member for Oshawa’s motion. This should be common sense.

Mr. Neumann: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak to this motion. I commend the member for bringing this matter to the attention of the Legislature. The debate should be an interesting one.

I am pleased to work with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins). He is the epitome of the attitude of accessibility and openness of this government, a minister who listens to all sides of an issue before making a decision. I know this has been the process with all of the legislation passed under his leadership during this session with respect to municipal reform.

I find it interesting that the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, finds the pace of reform a little too fast. However, I think it is very appropriate that we get on with making the necessary changes to raise the profile of municipal councils, school boards and public utilities commissions across Ontario, that being a very important level of government and the level of government closest to the people.

I found it interesting in looking back through the advisory committee report, which I had read some time ago, and in refreshing my memory on it, that in this report there are actually two recommendations.

Recommendation 82, which is the one before us and says, “The committee recommends that no changes in the method of election or in the composition of municipal councils or school boards be permitted after January 15 of an election year,” actually does not refer to legislative change, which the member seems to indicate. One can go to the interim report, which provided the rationale for this recommendation. I would like to read into the record the leadup to the recommendation. It says:

“Changes in method of election and composition of councils and school boards: In most cases, alterations in the method of election of members of council (ward basis to at-large basis and vice versa) and reductions or increases in the size of a council are made as a result of an application to the Ontario Municipal Board. In one municipality, a change in the method of election was approved in October 1982, which was an election year. There have been several other instances in recent years where changes in the method of election or council size have received 0MB approval between April and August of the election year.

“Section 59 of the Education Act permits changes in the composition of a school board to take place until mid-September of an election year. We believe that changes in the method of election and composition of both municipal councils and school boards should be made well in advance of polling day.”

I would like to raise two points. First, the recommendation the member has borrowed to put into resolution form before this Legislature, which he suggests is guidance to future governments and legislatures, really was intended as guidance to the Ontario Municipal Board and guidance to local school boards and councils in terms of changing their composition. Second, the dates mentioned are August to October of an election year. So even if one concludes that we should be looking at guidance to this Legislature, the dates of legislation are well in advance of the months suggested in the rationale leading up to this recommendation.

There was a second recommendation in the committee report, which reads, “The committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not enact any legislation affecting the local government electoral process within the six months immediately preceding voting day, in an election year.”

This year, the municipal election will take place on November 14, and six months ahead was May 14. I would submit that the government has lived up to the spirit of this initial recommendation, which the member has not chosen to incorporate into his resolution, strangely enough. The item that prompted the recommendation is mentioned in the rationale. It says, “the majority of the respondents felt that the timing of the passing of the bill was inappropriate,” and it refers to Bill 38, which enfranchised persons in psychiatric facilities and required municipal clerks to set up additional polling stations in nursing homes and psychiatric facilities.

The election in 1985 took place on November 12, and Bill 38 was passed and given royal assent on October 28, 1985, so the date of passing of legislation that prompted this recommendation was a bill that passed just a few weeks prior to the election.

In this case, we have enacted several bills relating to the municipal election this fall, as has been pointed out: Bill 29, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, which went through the Legislature in February, was passed well before the six-month guideline suggested in this particular resolution; Bill 125, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts related to Education, and Bill 77, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Assessment Act, were passed earlier this spring, and Bill 106 was given third reading yesterday. Mind you, it was after the May 14 suggestion, but first reading was given well in advance of May 14, and indeed, if one looks at the work that led up to Bill 106, there is a considerable history there.

I would take note that Bill 106 had not been developed in secret without input from the people who will be most affected by it. It was adopted after full consultation with the advisory committee, consultation with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and with people across Ontario. Indeed, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs began holding seminars across the province for people interested in running for local government election. These were held early in the year, and the changes proposed for Bill 106 were presented to any of the people who attended.

The changes proposed for Bill 106 were circulated across the province after the minister’s statement last December. The minister made a statement in the House outlining the changes to be proposed in Bill 106. They were sent to all the clerks right across the province, and the seminars informed average citizens and members of council. The only significant change to Bill 106 prior to its introduction was the addition of the option to go for a tax rebate or a donation rebate system. That particular aspect was added to the bill and is optional. No municipal council is obliged to introduce that. They have the option to introduce it, so it is not being imposed upon municipalities.

I would suggest that the rationale being given by the member for Oshawa is an erroneous one. In the first place, the rationale he has used is for a recommendation in the report which he has not incorporated in his resolution. Second, even if one gives him the benefit of the doubt and says that it is guidance to the Legislature, the recommendation was for six months prior to the election, and the government has adhered to the spirit of that: in prior notice, well in advance of these bills being passed; there was full debate in the Legislature; a couple of the bills went to committee, with hearings and there was ample consultation; the Association of Municipalities of Ontario supported Bill 106.

1040

Indeed, I am puzzled because there seem to be considerable differences of opinion emerging within the official opposition. In the Toronto Globe and Mail on Monday, May 2, Robin Sears, assistant to the leader, indicated that Bill 106 had the full support of the New Democratic Party: “Mr. Sears said the bill will be beneficial to New Democrats ‘who don’t raise money from development lawyers.’ He added that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are enthusiastic about the new legislation.”

I find it rather strange that yesterday in the House the official opposition voted against Bill 106, despite the fact that the member for Oshawa indicated his support of this kind of reform. There seems to be a moving back and forth within that party.

In fact, the members of the official opposition who represented that party in the committee hearings indicated that they wanted to see the bill passed and that they wanted the committee to deal with it quickly and get it back to the Legislature for speedy approval, so I was surprised to hear that the official opposition voted against this important municipal reform. As I said at the beginning of my speech, perhaps the pace of reform is too fast for the official opposition.

However, we feel that the four pieces of legislation affecting this fall’s municipal election were passed in ample time and that sufficient warning was given right across the province. Consultation occurred with all four pieces of legislation and a great deal of assistance will be given by the ministry to the municipalities in helping them to understand the details of it and to implement it effectively for this fall’s election. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this resolution.

Ms. Bryden: I am very pleased the member for Oshawa brought in this resolution in order to give this House an opportunity to point out that the majority Liberal government is no different from the arrogant and bumbling Conservative majority government it replaced.

By stubbornly pushing through major changes in the whole electoral process in the province less than six months before the November 14 municipal election is due, the Minister of Municipal Affairs completely ignored the recommendation of the government-appointed Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections that no changes in the method of election or in the composition of municipal councils or school boards be permitted after January 15 of an election year.

The committee consisted of some very qualified people: Anne Johnston, former Toronto alderman; Gerald Parisien, former mayor of Cornwall and past president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and Mary Erichsen-Brown, former trustee from the Simcoe County Board of Education and past vice-president of the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario.

This knowledgeable and experienced group took a year to study the electoral process and made the recommendation we are discussing today. The minister has completely repudiated that recommendation, and we are here to discuss his follies and what may come from that. I do not mean his Folies Bergères; I mean his follies in pursuing this issue.

The changes in the rules for elections are embraced by at least four bills that have come before this House: there is Bill 29 to change all the arrangements for elections and voting in Metro Toronto municipal councils and school board elections; they have also radically changed the rules for all other municipal and school board elections throughout the rest of the province under Bill 106; they have radically changed the method of compiling lists of eligible voters for all councils and school boards across the province under Bill 77, and have radically changed the definitions of public, separate and French electors in Bill 125, which replaced an earlier bill, Bill 76, when it was found to be so flawed it had to be junked.

These bills were all introduced very late in 1987 or after the opening of the spring session on April 4, 1988. There was no time for adequate public hearings on any of them. There was no time or inclination to make a further study of anomalous situations that were pointed out by interested parties who wrote to the standing committee on general government which was examining Bill 106.

That attitude was: “We have been studying the process for years. We know what is best for the electors of this province. If you say the process is undemocratic or permits gerrymandering or is going to create all sorts of uncertainties, we say you are talking through your hat.” That is really paraphrasing what the minister has been telling us.

The proof that Bill 106, the amendment to the Municipal Elections Act, was seriously flawed came when the minister’s parliamentary assistant had to come to the general government committee and ask one of his trained seals on the committee to introduce no fewer than 30 amendments to the bill before it was ready to be sent back to the House.

Originally, it was brought to us as perfect legislation that had been studied for two or three years and did not need changing, but there were serious loopholes or errors pointed out by the various umbrella groups of municipal associations and municipal clerks; by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and so on. The minister just had to move to close a lot of those loopholes and that was why there were 30 amendments.

One of the important amendments that was brought in was restoring the right of an elector to be sworn in at the polls if he had been left off the list, but was otherwise a qualified elector. That had been removed in the original Bill 106, but fortunately the minister brought back and reinstated that very democratic right.

I predict we are going to have the most awful foulup in our municipal elections this fall as a result of the lack of time for proper study of the bills because of the lateness of their introduction and the lack of opportunity for input by the actual electors themselves. It is all very well to consult municipal clerks and elected people in municipal councils and school boards across the province, but there are the people who just vote for those people and who appoint the people who appoint the municipal clerks.

The government is guilty of sheer procrastination in not getting the process under way sooner. It has been in power for almost three years now. It would not have had to ignore the wise advice of the advisory committee if it had started sooner. Is this the behaviour of a government we should have confidence in? I think not.

We in the New Democratic Party voted against this Bill 106 because we think that the government alone, if it insists on putting through Bill 106 as it has done, should be held responsible for it. We wanted to point out that we did not think it was without flaws, but that we felt that at this stage it was too late to amend it adequately, so we will have to regard the present operation of it in the coming election as a sort of pilot project to show where the errors and loopholes are in it. I hope we will have immediate legislation after the next municipal election to close whatever glaring loopholes are undoubtedly going to emerge in the process of the election.

We agree that we needed municipal election reform and local board electoral reform, but not at the price of creating a complete mess in the coming municipal elections, so we are expressing our regret that we are going to have that mess because of the stubbornness of the government.

1050

The parliamentary assistant says that most of these bills went through or were at least introduced in the six months before November 14. Let me point out that Bill 106 was passed yesterday and that Bill 125, the school board bill, was just passed on June 1 of this year, so they certainly did not get under the six-month requirement. Some of the earlier ones went through very fast, without adequate hearings.

This hasty change in the rules will have disastrous consequences for many electors. Some will be left off the lists. Some will not find out how they can be sworn in or get a proxy before the polls have closed. Some will be disenfranchised through breakdowns in the administration or ambiguities in the law. Many will be inconvenienced and may even make court challenges to the legislation because of the ambiguities and the uncertainties. Many lawsuits may leave the future or the results up in the air.

Another very serious situation I want to mention in my closing minutes is that the school trustee elections are really completely in limbo because of the uncertainty about both the boundaries and the number of trustees who will be elected in each ward. This is particularly true in Metro Toronto. As a result, candidates cannot start campaigns, raise money, get out leaflets or even decide in which ward they are going to run until August 11. I gather that is now the date when they may find out the answers to these questions. This is completely irresponsible, to put our school board elections into such jeopardy and such uncertainty. This certainly could have been avoided throughout the province if they had started earlier, or it could have been clarified for the November 14 election if they had started earlier.

I am urging all members of this House to support this resolution and to tell the minister that he erred when he ignored the recommendation of the advisory committee, because that is exactly what he has done and that is what we are here to tell him today, as private members. Only a very stupid government would have let these situations arise. The uncertainties will put democratic elections in jeopardy this year.

Mr. Pollock: How much time have I got, Madam Speaker?

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): You have eight minutes.

Mr. Pollock: I want to say that I am going to support the member for Oshawa’s resolution. I think it is straightforward, quite factual and states it the way it should be, that the municipalities should have a lot of lead time to actually prepare for a general election. There is no question about it: we are rushing into this a little sooner than we should.

He mentioned the small municipalities that have part-time staffs. Of course, in a lot of those municipalities they are certainly just part-time politicians. It takes them a little longer because, in some cases, they only meet once a month to familiarize themselves with any change to the regulations. The municipalities like to inform their voters, their ratepayers, on any changes just as well as any large municipalities. For instance, one way to inform the voters is to send a flyer out with the tax bill.

I have already received my tax bill for this year, and I might mention that in that tax bill there was a little flyer with a little graph showing how my tax dollars are spent. I will just run through that: 67 per cent of my tax dollars go to the board of education, 11 per cent go to the county and 22 per cent go to the local municipality to keep up the roads, the fire department and that sort of thing. I just felt that if there were changes to the Election Act, they could have sent out a flyer itemizing some of the important changes and keeping the voters informed out there.

I might say that I have already had a person come into my constituency office and ask if he could vote. I said: “As far as I know, you’re a property owner.” He said, “Yes, but I’m not a Canadian citizen; I’m an American citizen.” He just wanted to know if that still allowed him to vote. I understand that under the new legislation, the only way you can vote, even in a municipal election, is to be a Canadian citizen.

Anyway, I told the chap I would check to see if he could have dual citizenship. Apparently, a British subject or a Canadian can have dual citizenship, but for an American it is questionable. For instance, you cannot just go out and have dual citizenship. If you want dual citizenship, you have to apply to the American embassy and nothing is guaranteed. They will rule on it.

The point I am trying to make is that if you have to apply to the American embassy to get dual citizenship, that will take a lot longer than 10 months. Even this resolution will not give the chap time to get dual citizenship if he wants to vote in a municipal election.

Those are a few of the things I wanted to put on the record.

I am sure members are aware that you usually get only about a 40 per cent turnout at a municipal election, so I think anything we can do to keep the general public informed about any changes is very important, and we should be doing our level best to do that.

Also, there seems to be some concern over the enumeration. Eventually, no doubt, it will fall into place, but there are certain problems there. I wanted to put a few things on the record in that regard.

Mr. Mahoney: I found it interesting to hear the comments of the member for Oshawa at the beginning, because they were substantially different from the interpretation of the bill in its actual form. I respect the honourable member and his time in the House and I am sure he knows exactly what it is he is putting forward, but he suggested he was looking for some flexibility. And yet, when you read the resolution, it clearly states “no changes...be permitted after January 15 in an election year.” Frankly, that is not flexibility.

The comments were made that he wanted to be fair with the government and would not attack us on, I guess, the substantive issues in Bill 106, but rather, would we just be a little flexible and try not to implement changes in the municipal elections after January 15 of an election year? That clearly is not what this particular resolution says.

Briefly, too, I want to point out that I found it interesting in the committee work on Bill 106 that the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) referred to 30 amendments from the government side, many of them a result of the consultation process that took place very substantially prior to it coming to committee. We heard from delegates from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, from the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario and from numerous school board associations across the province that came in and made suggestions on how we could best change it.

Clearly, some did say, “We don’t want it implemented until 1991 ,” but the reality is that if you do not implement it, now that we have implemented Bill 106, and if you look at this resolution and see what the effect would be if this resolution were in place, the effect would be that many of the good and very progressive changes in Bill 106 would not be able to be implemented this year.

I refer members to the change requiring two advance polls and requiring that the advance polls be properly accessible for the handicapped. If the honourable member’s resolution were in fact part of the legislation, then we would not be able to implement those for another three and a half years, and I am sure the honourable member would not want to see that happen.

On the issue of proxy votes, the fact that a seasonal property owner is allowed to go and vote for all voting members of his family who are on the list -- something seen as very progressive, something seen as very valuable for people with seasonal property -- again, we would not be able to implement that if the honourable member’s resolution were put forward. The change, I think, and the difficulty that I hear particularly the members from the Conservative Party talking about, I understand, because frankly, in the many, many years when they were in government, they were used to the status quo. I, as a municipal councillor for a number of years, was used to the status quo and used to things not changing.

1100

This government is looking to change in all areas of this province and, I think, leading the way with very positive reform. The many bills that the honourable member for Brantford referred to, and Bill 106, are positive and are bills that, as I said, we would not be allowed to deal with in the context of an election year. I think that would be a mistake.

Mr. Breaugh: It perhaps was impossible. I did try to have this printed. It has been in Orders and Notices for almost a month. It is hidden carefully on the top of everyone’s desk this morning. I have listened to members speak about a bill which does not exist. I have listened to them talk about a number of pieces of legislation which are not on the agenda this morning. What is here is a fairly straightforward resolution which was brought forward by an advisory committee of the ministry.

I am somewhat taken aback that some of the government members seem to abuse that group that works so hard for them and would have silly notions. It says nothing at all in the resolution about what a government can or cannot do. It simply addresses the fact that whatever government is going to do, it should get it done by the middle of January in election year.

I do not think that is an unreasonable request. That was simply advice from an advisory committee to a minister that simply said to the ministry, “Get your act together. If you want to propose legislative changes, propose them, but get them done in time that the municipalities have a reasonable opportunity to implement those.” I do not think that was an unreasonable piece of advice from them in 1987 and I do not think it would be an unreasonable piece of advice from this Legislature, as private members, to the government this morning.

It seems to me that is all the resolution calls for. Many of the members who may want to be anxious, I suppose, to defend the government’s record on the matter, do so, but is seems to me that this fall they are going to have to explain to some people why there are some problems with this fall’s municipal election, and they are unnecessary problems. There are lots of things that we would have liked to have supported and would have on other occasions but we are trying to address ourselves, this morning, to the practical matter.

Now, I was somewhat taken aback by the attack by the parliamentary assistant to the member for Brant-Haldimand, and then I reflected for a moment. I knew him when he was waffling to the left and now he is waffling to the right. It is true, there is movement, but he is not going anywhere. There is only one more political party that he has yet to join in the chamber and he will probably join them in a short while. So, I listened to him speak for 10 minutes. He imputed motives to the advisory committee, to me and everybody else in here. He did everything but say whether he was for or against the resolution.

What a pity.

The Deputy Speaker: This concludes the debate on Mr. Breaugh’s resolution.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr. Jackson moved resolution 37:

That in the opinion of this House, the standing committee on social development should be directed to consider and report to this House by November 30, 1988, on the problem of sexual assault in this province;

That the committee should conduct its inquiry in three phases:

(a) In the first phase, to the extent that it is possible to do so within the bounds of provincial jurisdiction, to consider the attitude of the courts, legal institutions and law enforcement agencies toward sexual assault, and their treatment of its victims, and in particular to consider the attitude exhibited, statements made and sentences imposed by judges during sexual assault trials;

(b) In the second phase, to consider the provision of counselling, support, crisis intervention and other services to the victims of sexual assault, and in particular to consider the funding needs and other needs of nonprofit and/or volunteer groups and organizations which provide services to the victims of sexual assault;

(c) And in the third phase, to consider the causes of sexual assault and the prevention thereof, and to consider any other issues related to sexual assault which the committee may deem relevant or wish to consider;

That the committee should have the authority to release its reports during any adjournment or recess between sessions by depositing a copy of the report with the clerk of the assembly and upon resumption of meetings of the House, the chairman of the committee should bring such reports before the House in accordance with the standing orders;

That the committee should have the authority to sit concurrently with the House and during any adjournment or recess of the House, subject to the approval of the three party House leaders;

And that while the committee is engaged in consideration of the problem of sexual assault in the province, the committee should have authority to adjourn from place to place in Ontario, and a full Hansard service should be provided for the committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Jackson has moved the resolution standing in his name. The honourable member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Jackson: At the outset, I wish to make one point about this rather extensive resolution that I have just read into Hansard.

The point I wish to make is that what is at issue here is the principle of taking what is a very serious and traumatic issue in this province and bringing it clearly within full focus and before a committee of this Legislature so that the public, the victims of sexual assault, have an opportunity to present their case clearly before members of this Legislature.

To the extent that they have not been provided with that opportunity, I believe much will be achieved and can be achieved by allowing them an opportunity to present their case directly to elected people, those of us who actually make the laws and who are responsible for the necessary reforms that it is abundantly clear are required.

I now wish to present my concerns and the issue here, and why I feel so strongly about victims in Ontario having an opportunity for this input.

The minister responsible for women’s issues (Mr. Sorbara) has already announced plans for a 13-ministry, interministerial study of the problems of sexual assault. That is a worthwhile venture. It is long overdue and it has the full support of our party. But when I asked the minister whether these civil servants are going to meet with the real victims, to hear their experiences at the hands of the court system, the police, even in the course of certain episodes in hospitals, he indicated they would not.

This answer comes from the same minister who has shown his commitment to the women of this province by leaving vacant the presidency and I believe it is eight seats on the board of the Ontario Advisory Council on Women’s Issues. We are looking for something more solid and concrete from the minister in terms of his commitment to women and their need to have their advocacy role strengthened in this province.

There is money for a $600,000 ad campaign and there is time for a bunch of bureaucrats to discuss the matter behind closed doors, but, according to the minister responsible for women’s issues, there is no opportunity for the real victims to be allowed to talk directly to us as politicians and members of the public about their experiences in the system.

That to my mind is unacceptable and any action, any reform has to involve victim input and an accompanying change in attitude by members of this House. It is essential that input be allowed.

My study of this issue and my experiences talking with victims and women’s advocates and sexual assault crisis workers have shaped and changed my views on this important issue. It is my hope that this committee study will do the same for other MPPs.

The first area of inquiry, the manner in which our legal and other institutions treat victims of sexual assault, shows why an attitude change is required. Members have already heard some of the comments and sentences handed down by judges in Ontario in sexual assault cases. I raised a question with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) some two weeks ago. Comments from judges like, “No evidence of any permanent injury inflicted upon the complainant.” In this case, it was a 13-year-old girl who had been sexually assaulted. Or a judge who says that the sentence should not be as harsh because there was no damage to the victim’s clothing. Or a sentence like 90 days to be served on weekends because the accused came from a “good family.”

This was all very well documented by the Metro Action Committee on Public Violence Against Women and Children and they have provided a copy of that document for all members of this House. It has become the leader in tracking and monitoring this crucial issue in this province. Its executive director, Patricia Marshall, deserves tremendous credit for the work and advocacy that she has done.

1110

The fact is, as documented by Boyle in her book Sexual Assault and Nadin-Davies in his book Sentencing in Canada, courts are still not giving adequate consideration to the impact of sexual assault on its victims. When I asked the Attorney General about this during question period, he was unwilling to take any action. He suggested that he would hide behind the issue of judicial independence, claiming that his hands were in fact tied. That answer just simply is not good enough today in Ontario. The rape victims of this province will not buy this hands-off approach.

We all remember 73-year-old Judge Vannini, the Liberal appointee -- I believe it was Lester Pearson who appointed him -- who based sentences on whether or not the complainant was a virgin. While provincial jurisdiction over this issue is limited, as the motion admits, it is about time for a committee of this Legislature to study it for the first time ever.

Attitude problems are not new. As a matter of fact, my intern, who was doing some examination of this subject, found out that there was a passage in the law of Alfred the Great back in 892 AD. I will quote from the law: If a man “seizes the breast of a woman...and lies with her, he shall pay 60 shillings compensation...if another man has previously lain with her, then the compensation shall be half this sum.” It seems this dehumanizing attitudinal problem is more than 1,000 years old.

I am reminded of the Attorney General’s meeting with the people from Metrac, which I referred to earlier, and his statement to them that crown attorneys can afford to spend only 15 minutes with a victim witness before a trial. I find it shocking that this crime, which will leave its mark on victims for years, merits only a 15-minute pretrial meeting in Ontario.

A decade ago, the Provincial Secretariat for Justice held a Consultation on Rape. One of the results was a booklet which advised medical, police, educational and rape crisis workers on how to deal with victims. Perhaps the committee could consider similar materials for court officials and crown attorneys. Why can our law schools and bar admission courses not teach students about sexual assault and the historic attitudinal problem so that we develop a generation of young lawyers and future judges who have no link with the misguided and dangerous stereotypes of the past?

I suggest to members that it will be important to consider sexual assault victims’ perceptions of their treatment by other institutions as well. The Canadian Urban Victimization Survey found that almost two thirds of sexual assault victims do not report to the police, largely because they believe that this will only add to their trauma. The study also found that those who have been sexually assaulted are more likely than victims of any other crime to give police a poor rating on keeping them informed on the progress of their case, on the courtesy they display and on overall performance.

Why is there a dichotomy between hospitals, where reporting to the police is mandatory -- a major psychological trauma for women, who fear the police to begin with -- and rape crisis centres, which allow victims to choose how far they will pursue the crime in the courts? The latter system preserves victims’ privacy and freedom of choice. A legislative inquiry would force the government to create an agenda to address this difference and to make public its true policy approach in this matter. I realize that law enforcement officers are taking steps to deal with these negative perceptions, but I remind members that these perceptions are real and they must be addressed.

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote from a letter which was anonymously forwarded to me by a woman who describes her treatment before the police. It is actually a letter which was signed and addressed to Clare Westcott at the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission offices. I quote from the letter.

“I had lived for many years with a violent and abusive man. When this man began to hurt our son, I did what I assume a great many women in this situation do, and that was to decide to try to end the relationship. It took me two and a half years to do this. It involved a great deal of court effort and cost me $30,000. The $30,000 represents all the assets I had from the sale of our home.

“During this time, while we were in court and not living together, this man waged an intensive and vindictive battle against me at every level of court. As well, this man appeared unpredictably and randomly to terrorize us with his threats, violence and explosive rages of temper that left us, if not knee deep in broken glass, with enough shards on the kitchen floor that, for a whole year, no one went barefoot in our kitchen.

“When I called the police, the police could come and I would catch them as they started to ‘keep the peace.’ I remember standing there, often bruised, sometimes bleeding, petrified on one hand, relieved on the other that we were alive, guilty and ashamed of what was happening, wondering how and when this would all end and accepting the whole time that this was part of a normal separation. It never occurred to me that I had the right to be protected and that what was happening was a crime.

“The reason I am writing is not to blame or seek redress. The reason I am deeply embittered of the police is that, in fact, the police behaved no differently than anyone else in my life at this time.”

This is not an academic exercise. We are talking about real pain and real suffering by thousands of women. It is caused partly by societal attitudes. We, as legislators, can play a leading role in changing those attitudes. After all, is not the authoritative allocation of values the essence of what government and representation is all about?

The second area of inquiry would allow the committee to look into support services for women who have been raped or sexually assaulted. When a rapist goes to jail in Ontario, he has at his disposal nearly 100 social workers and 60 psychologists, all paid for with taxpayers dollars, but his victims receive very little, if anything. Long-term counselling is paid for by the victims themselves, except for any money they recover from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Yesterday, I discussed the fact that even this money comes from the taxpayers. The perpetrators get away scot-free. Actually, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board can sue criminals to recover the money it has paid out, but it recovers less than two per cent of its total awards under this method. Should victims not be allowed to come forward and address this glaring inequity before a committee of this Legislature?

The only free service is the actual crisis intervention, which is support and counselling provided immediately after a victim has been attacked. But even this help, in Ontario, is threatened. Ontario rape crisis centres right now are hanging by a thread -- not all, but some. Emergency funding keeps alive the centres in Kenora and Oshawa, and this cash was extended only following joint pressure from the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, the opposition here at Queen’s Park and the media. Meanwhile, the Sault Ste. Marie centre still remains closed as a result of a form of financial starvation.

My discussions with representatives from crisis centres across the province have revealed that their most important need is a stable, long-term funding formula. Members might be surprised to hear that these centres are not allowed to direct any government money towards staffing costs. While over 150 salaried professionals coddle and counsel our criminal population, rape victims are forced to rely on volunteers.

Rape crisis volunteers are being exploited. They are expected to do a variety of things. They are required to meet victims during the middle of the night to escort them to the hospital. They are required to have an extremely good understanding of our legal system here in Ontario. They also have to be sensitive to the issues and the personal impact that a violent rape has on an individual. These are skills that do not come easily. We are placing an unreasonable expectation on the volunteer sector in thinking that the level of support service can be maintained in the environment of a rape crisis centre without that funding.

1120

I would like to quote from the Hamilton Spectator of April 26, 1988. It is a story by reporter Emilia Casella and it quotes Vilma Rossi, the executive director of the Sexual Assault Centre in Hamilton:

“‘They want us to remain volunteer-based, but we have to have a core of staff. It’s imperative,’ to provide training and keep the centres running smoothly, Ms. Rossi said....

“The Ministry of the Solicitor General provides $300,000 to 20 centres in Ontario. Ms. Rossi says the money barely covers operating costs and cannot be used to pay office workers....

“All centres have to secure outside donations to survive. At northern Ontario centres, where fund-raising is difficult, some volunteers have taken part-time jobs to keep their centres open, she said.

“‘We’re almost expecting these women to live at a poverty level,’ said Ms. Rossi,” in order to provide the services that are so critically required in her community. The article continues, “‘That’s just become a situation we can’t tolerate any more’” in the field, and we certainly cannot tolerate as legislators.

The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) says funds are limited. I say it is a simple question of setting priorities and spending the existing funds within her ministry more wisely. Meanwhile, the main office costs of Liberal cabinet ministers have gone up by 49.6 per cent over the past three and a half years, two and a half times the inflation rate for that period. The Liberals have their staffing needs looked after. What about the women and children who rely on rape crisis centres in Ontario? When is it going to be their turn to have their staffing needs met?

These crisis intervention centres play a vital role for rape victims in Ontario; therefore, it is essential that they receive the co-operation and the support from this government and from all other agencies.

I am reminded of a situation that took place in my own constituency just last March, involving a 78-year-old female sexual assault victim. She lives alone. She was severely traumatized and she needed counselling and support just to overcome her fear of returning to her apartment alone because her assailant had never been caught.

In my community, we are fortunate to have an active group. It is called Sexual Assault Services of Halton, SASH for short, which is struggling without any provincial funding. With no family in Burlington, it took a friend of this victim to call my constituency office five days later to find the number for this counselling service. Within an hour, they had a counsellor at her bedside. She sat in that hospital alone for five days.

The government clearly should take steps to ensure that there are strong communication links between the centres and others who deal with rape victims, so that those in need of counselling and support can be quickly referred to the appropriate agencies. It should ensure that groups like SASH receive the funding that they need in order to stabilize, so that constituents like my own will have somewhere to turn in their hour of need.

This proposal will not change the way women are treated by our legal institutions, nor will it resolve fully the funding needs of groups which provide services to victims, but it will allow victims to come forward to share with MPPs their experiences through participation in a public inquiry before an all-party committee of this House. As this House and this government move to tackle the problems of sexual assault, we cannot forget to reserve for victims a prominent place at the table. They must be heard and we, as responsible legislators, must listen.

Ms. Collins: I would like to respond to the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) on this motion. The Ontario government is committed to addressing the serious problem. Sexual assault, like other forms of violence against women, is a barrier to women’s equal participation in society. One in four Canadian women is sexually assaulted during her life. Most women live with the fear of being sexually assaulted. Sexual assault is a serious and frequent crime that affects our whole society.

On May 31, the minister responsible for women’s issues launched a month-long, sexual assault public education campaign called Sexual Assault: It’s a Crime. The aim of the campaign is to educate the public about this issue. The first step in prevention of sexual assault is knowledge. As a society, we must know about the problem in order to deal with it and attempt to eliminate it.

The Ontario government is committed to preventing sexual assault and the main theme of this campaign is that prevention of sexual assault is a community responsibility. This public education campaign will increase awareness of sexual assault and the myths that surround it. The government is committed to prevention of sexual assault in the long term and to providing support services for victims now. The campaign is designed to change attitudes about the seriousness of this problem and the need for broader public support for victims of sexual assault.

I would like to outline briefly aims of the sexual assault public education campaign currently under way. One of its aims is to shatter myths. We have heard many myths about sexual assault. One of the most common myths is that sexual assaults take place only in dark alleys, late at night, and that they are committed by someone who is a stranger to the victim. The facts are: more than half of all sexual assaults take place in private homes, and in more than half of all instances of sexual assault women are sexually assaulted by men they know. This includes their colleagues, neighbours, employers, dates or husbands.

This campaign challenges those myths. In so doing, it will encourage us to think about our attitudes and to realize as a community that we need to care and talk about this issue. Everyone has to understand that a woman has the right to say no, whatever the situation. We have to stop blaming victims and instead blame the perpetrators of this crime. Sexual assault will only end when men take responsibility for their violence towards women.

This campaign will educate the public that sexual assault is any unwanted act of a sexual nature, not just rape in a dark alley by a stranger. The campaign gives a clear message that any unwanted act of a sexual nature imposed by one person upon another is a crime. The campaign, which will run throughout this month, includes two television advertisements, produced in French and in English, which challenge widely held myths that blame women for being sexually assaulted and allow assailants to avoid responsibility for their actions. As well, a brochure on sexual assault is being widely distributed in many public locations throughout the province, including grocery stores.

A third component of the campaign is $120,000 in funding which has been issued by the Ontario women’s directorate to 69 community groups across Ontario. These funds are being used for local public education initiatives specific to the needs of local communities. These projects will reinforce the messages of the mass-media advertising.

I want to give a few examples of what this money is doing in local communities. In Chatham, the Chatham-Kent Assault Centre is undertaking a survey and a sexual assault public education display in a local shopping mall and presenting two public forums on the issue. In Kenora, the Ojibway Tribal Family Services is presenting sexual assault workshops led by native female leaders to native women from 14 bands. In Sudbury, the Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre is producing three pamphlets on sexual assault to be distributed in 65 area secondary and post-secondary schools. In Brantford, Nova Vita Women’s Shelter has developed a comprehensive information package to be distributed throughout Brant county.

In Fort Frances, the Rainy River District Community Legal Clinic is developing and implementing a local media campaign about community responsibility in prevention of sexual assault. In Ottawa, Maison d’amitie is developing and printing a brochure on sexual assault to be distributed at a series of three workshops for staff and residents of the shelter.

These projects reflect the wide range of sexual assault public education initiatives that are taking place throughout Ontario using these funds. These achievements, which are being realized in Ontario communities and the impact of this major sexual assault public education campaign today reflect the commitment of the government to a comprehensive program that treats effectively the many elements of sexual assault.

To the extent that the member’s resolution implies his personal support for this campaign, I want to welcome that support. At the same time, I cannot agree with his proposal that the standing committee on social development conduct the kind of inquiry that he has outlined. Notwithstanding the government’s commitment to this issue, we are not convinced that standing committee hearings are the appropriate solution. Instead, we are supporting and carrying out an interministerial approach to dealing effectively with this serious crime.

1130

The Ontario women’s directorate will chair the first meeting of the interministerial committee on sexual assault in mid-June. Thirteen ministries will discuss programs and policies to reduce the incidence of sexual assault and to support, in a co-ordinated and comprehensive manner, the victims of this crime.

The advantages of an interministerial approach have been demonstrated by, for example, the work of the interministerial committee on family violence which was successful in developing policies and programs related to family violence in Ontario. An interministerial approach to an issue such as sexual assault will facilitate input from the public through consultation with the ministries represented on the committee.

Let me assure my honourable friend that this government is working hard to make sure that the public understands the tragic dimensions of sexual assault. Sexual assault is a crime. The real remedies to sexual assault lie in action. The time for discovery and reflection in relation to this issue is long past. Yet this is the approach the member’s resolution would have us take. I know, as do the growing numbers of people in Ontario whose personal and professional lives have been touched by sexual assault, that this problem must be solved and soon.

As I have described to the members, the government is embarked on an integrated and co-ordinated approach to sexual assault, an approach that I am confident will result in effective action -- action that will, in the long term, eliminate this serious crime from our communities.

Ms. Bryden: I am afraid the member who put forth this resolution is incorrect when he says his is a first-time-ever proposal for a committee to review the problem of sexual assault. He should have looked at the history of the Conservative regime in this province.

Back in 1982 there was a standing committee which heard many briefs on the question of wife-battering. I sat on that committee. It went on for most of the summer that year and produced a very excellent report. I think it is up to the member for Burlington South to tell us why the Progressive Conservative government did practically nothing to implement this report.

It covered all the issues he wants to cover in this new study and it had some admirable recommendations. The major one was: “The Ministry of Community and Social Services should introduce without delay a bill devoted exclusively to the issue of wife-battering. In particular, the bill should ensure that the capital and operating costs of transition houses for battered women and their children, including the cost of support services” -- that is, counselling and so on – “are adequately funded. Standards for the houses should be prescribed.”

That is one of many recommendations. This committee also interviewed some of the victims, personally, before the committee. Some of them had to be held in camera at the request of the victim. We also interviewed wife batterers and ended up with a much greater understanding of the subject.

I will say that the subject was referred to the standing committee on social development by 20 opposition members standing and saying, “We want this study.” But it shows how little value studies are if nothing happens from them, and I think that is what is wrong with this resolution. However, I will support it because I think we have to focus attention on the problem, but it is the weakest possible response the member for Burlington South could have suggested to this House.

I think the second weakest response is what the Liberal government is doing and what we have just heard about. The spokesperson for the Liberal government has said that the government has shown its commitment to dealing with this problem. How is it showing this? By spending $600,000, throwing away money on ads on the subject.

I do not say we do not need some advertising education, we do; but the real education has to be made at all levels of judges who make the decisions when rape victims come before them. It has to be education among all the law enforcement officers and among all the social service people serving the victims. It needs to educate right down the system; but it also needs to support the victims.

That is where this government is extremely weak. The requests by the rape crisis centres for a long-term funding program that would cover both capital and operating costs and would provide them with a minimum paid staff have been completely rejected to this date by the Solicitor General’s office and they are still negotiating the 1988-89 grants two and a half months after the fiscal year began.

The rape crisis centres are going to the bank to borrow or borrowing from friends. Several of them have threatened to or possibly decided they would have to close their doors. They have laid off staff. They have cut payrolls. They just are being starved out of existence by the delay of the Ministry of the Solicitor General to come to an agreement with them, to negotiate an agreement for 1988-89. They started this negotiation in February and March, presenting long-term plans and proposals for how they should be carrying out their very important assignment of bringing caring service to the victims of rape in this province.

I understand that all the Solicitor General has done is to bail out two that were about to close their doors: Oshawa and Kenora. They have given a little bit of extra money to the people in Hamilton, because they asked for it, to handle the extra request for service they expect will come out of this $600,000 advertising campaign.

I am not saying we should not have some advertising, but at least half of that $600,000 could have been spent to give actual help to the rape crisis centres in an immediate interim arrangement, and there should be a long-term funding plan to enable these centres to continue to operate.

They are the only game in town in many cases. They are the only people who are bringing compassionate, caring service to the victims. They are the only people who are doing any education in many communities, and they need money for education, for buildings, for operating costs. They need help in getting victims rehabilitated in jobs and in housing, but they just cannot do the job with volunteer staff. Their volunteers are burning out every couple of years. They just cannot keep up with answering the phone for emergencies and trying to do all the other things, and then spend half their time in fund-raising as well.

I think what we should have before us today is an action plan, which we should demand of the government in power, to immediately solve this question of how rape crisis centres and transition houses can be adequately funded.

The standing committee rejected the present route of having them partly funded by municipal welfare services. That is why they want a separate act. That is why they want to give the recognition to this service that it is not a service for people who are on welfare and to be dealt with by municipal welfare administrators who do not understand a lot of the problems and are too busy. It should be dealt with by a special provincial body entrusted with solving the problems of the victims of sexual assault and stopping the causes.

We are told that one in 10 women is battered, but we do not have enough research on what the reason is and how it can be stopped. We do not have enough counselling for wife batterers, there are only a few facilities available; and we do not have enough support services for the victims in rape crisis centres and in transition houses.

1140

I think in this debate we should vote for the resolution, but say this is only an indication of what needs to be done. We hope there will be an action program out of the government in power very soon, that it will not be just stopping rape crisis centres from closing their doors and that it will be a long-term program to put them on a basis where they can be recognized in the community and not have to go out begging for funds from every source possible but can get on with the job of looking after sexual assault and educating the public, the judges and all of the other people who need much more public awareness on the problem.

I hope that out of this resolution we will get a much greater commitment from the Liberal government. I hope they will certainly tell the Solicitor General to get a new agreement by, I would say, the end of this month with all the rape crisis centres so they will know where they stand and not have to tell their bank managers: “We are sorry, we cannot pay our bills this month;” and they will not have their volunteers say, “We cannot man the phone around the clock because everybody is worn out.”

We have to get something more concrete out of this government. If we do not, it has failed in its commitment to reform things that were left dormant by the previous government.

Mrs. Cunningham: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise in the House today to support my colleague’s resolution.

Sexual assault is a crime affecting women of all ages. I think it is time the government make a serious commitment to helping victims of rape. There is no doubt about the need for help for these victims and, just as much, for their families.

My colleague’s resolution asks that the standing committee on social development consider the problem of sexual assault and report to the House by November 30. He has also asked that the committee conduct an inquiry in three phases. I would like to take this opportunity to comment briefly on these phases.

The first phase of the inquiry will consider the attitude of the courts in statements made and sentences imposed by judges during sexual assault trials. It is well known by this House, and was referred to earlier, that on January 11, Mr. Justice Vannini handed down a sentence of a mere 90 days to Bruce Glassford to be served on weekends. This sentence was totally inappropriate for this 22-year-old man who beat and sexually assaulted a 27-year-old woman. Mr. Justice Vannini stated that Bruce Glassford “came from a good family” and that “the attack was short in duration.” These words are no comfort to victims, to their families and to the citizens of Ontario.

This 90-day sentence was appealed and a new sentence of two years less a day was passed.

However, in this case and others like it, appeals should not be necessary. Stronger first sentences are required and must be enforced.

Mr. Justice Vannini is not the only judge who has taken the crime of rape lightly, who does not understand the major trauma, the physical and emotional abuse that victims carry with them for the rest of their lives. The standing committee on social development would closely observe the attitudes of our judges and help to ensure enforcement of reasonable sentences.

Obviously, public education is important. It is also important for doctors, for other professionals and educators and, obviously, especially important for criminal and justice system workers. It should be necessary and provided as part of their professional upgrading.

These are aspects of rape that most of us are not aware of, that should be looked at and studied by this committee with recommendations being made for improvement, at least in this part of the study, with regard to professional development of judges and the people involved in working with victims of rape.

The second phase of the inquiry would consider the provisions of counselling support, crisis intervention and other services to victims of sexual assault. In particular, it would consider the funding and other needs of nonprofit and/or volunteer groups and organizations which provide services to the victims of sexual assault.

What a wonderful opportunity to speak to people who are working in the 16 centres across Ontario and to get firsthand advice as to how their centres are working, what they need, what they are accomplishing and how we can provide service to these people.

As I have stated, there are 16 centres in the coalition, including one in my own riding of London North, the Sexual Assault Centre London, to which the citizens of London have access and for which they are appreciative. But what about the other parts of this province? What about small municipalities? What about the north? What about rural communities? Should they not have these same kinds of services? We should not be talking about supporting programs and the services that exist; we should be talking about supporting those programs financially and expanding them.

Currently, these few centres are composed of volunteers. There is not enough money for paid staff. Volunteers are expected to provide all forms of counselling. They escort women to the hospital, sometimes in the middle of the night. These volunteers are often people who must learn these very necessary counselling and support skills in a very short period of time with very little assistance from professionals. The professionals who are working as volunteers are currently overworked in their own counselling centres and in their own day-to-day jobs as they work with families and women and children, and they give of their own free time to help other volunteers in the professional type of counselling necessary for the victims of rape.

It is difficult to get volunteers for the reason I have just mentioned and also because more women are entering the workforce. It is true of all volunteer services across Ontario. For those volunteers who do have the time, who are committed and who have made this a second unpaid career, they hardly have time to upgrade their skills, since there are very few people available to replace them while they attend the few courses that are provided.

The present funding from the Solicitor General does not allow for staff salaries. Funds must be used to cover the maintenance fees.

It would be wonderful to say that prevention through public education efforts and large advertising campaigns is the answer, but it is a very small part. We still have far too many victims of sexual assault. We commend the government on its sexual assault public education campaign, but we would urge the government to deal directly with the real substance of this tragedy in our society, and it is a very large tragedy. Someone earlier mentioned that 50 per cent of these rapes are committed in people’s own homes; so this is an assault on the family.

The government’s campaign is a legitimate acknowledgement that sexual assault is a very serious problem, but we are saying that much more needs to be done. We have services in place at this moment. Services in communities are very difficult to get started. It sometimes takes two or three years before we reap the benefits of the initial hard work. There is no possible way the centres can provide effective counselling services if they are without professional staff who are paid for the necessary counselling services and other services and who are qualified to train the volunteers to perform some -- not all, but some -- of the support services necessary for the victims.

These 16 centres, and hopefully more, should receive ongoing funding. Programs should be a priority with this government and should be a higher priority than the advertising campaigns. The standing committee on social development would carefully monitor the needs of these centres and assist the government in improving resources and funding available. The 1982 report referred to earlier recommended that rape crisis centres should be adequately funded, and that is capital, operating and support services.

It is fine to blame the past, but I did not notice that this was one of the priorities that came into the accord; so we cannot just blame the government of 1982. Certainly, the accord that existed did not consider rape crisis centres to be a priority and a topic of discussion.

The third phase would consider the causes of sexual assault and the prevention thereof and consider any other issues related to sexual assault which the committee may deem relevant or wish to consider.

I think everyone in the House is in agreement that sexual assault is a very serious crime. We need to take a critical look at prevention and causes in order to understand the psychology behind the crime and thereby establish more effective ways of dealing with sexual offenders and protecting our citizens.

In summary, there is much work to be done. I support my colleague’s resolution and ask that the standing committee on social development be directed to consider the problem of sexual assault in the province and report its findings to the House.

Miss Roberts: In addressing this resolution, I would like to inform the House of my involvement over the past 20 years as a defence counsel and as a part-time crown attorney dealing with the accused with respect to sexual assaults and with victims and their families. I have also been involved for many years in working with juvenile delinquents, as they were called in the past, and with youthful offenders.

I am also going to be addressing what I consider this government, this province, is doing to recognize the problem and addressing the progress that has been made on the issue of sexual assault.

In considering the first phase that has been put forward by the member for Burlington South -- that is, the inquiry into the attitude of the courts -- I wish to advise the House that it is my experience that the attitude of the courts, legal institutions and law enforcement agencies towards this crime and their treatment of its victims is improving dramatically.

I can recall being in courts back in the late 1960s in which it was a joke to have a victim put on the stand, where I might be the only person in the room who would have any consideration for the victim on the stand. I have noticed a great change in the development of the understanding of the courts and the persons surrounding the enforcement agencies with respect to sexual assault victims. As the Toronto Star reported last Saturday, a crackdown on sexual assault in the 1980s has resulted in a 25 per cent increase in charges across Canada in the past five years. Rapists and sex offenders now account for one in 10 prison inmates, up eight per cent from 1983. Criminal lawyer Clayton Ruby has acknowledged this shift in the treatment of sexual offenders. He told the Toronto Star: “Ten years ago, the easiest crime to get an acquittal on was rape. You just almost never found a conviction. It was a defence counsel’s dream.” But times have changed, and Mr. Ruby says today that the pendulum has swung the other way. I do not fully agree with Mr. Ruby. I would say the pendulum is swinging towards the other way.

When we are talking about sexual assault, we must consider the principle of the independence of the judiciary. We must consider that governments appoint judges, and the judiciary must be independent from government coercion. That is not to say the government has not taken steps or should not take steps to respond to the concerns about appropriate sentencing for sexual assault. In particular, the Attorney General has taken a number of steps. Crown attorneys have been directed to make sexual assaults priority items when they order their trial lists.

The issue of sexual assault has been emphasized in many training programs for crown attorneys, training not only as to how they should deal with the prosecution but also sensitizing the crowns to this problem. Further, special crowns have been trained in most crown offices to co-ordinate the prosecution of child abuse cases, which are often of a sexual nature. The crowns are beginning to and do reflect society’s increasing abhorrence of sexual assault by requesting more severe sentences than in the past and by appealing sentences which are deemed insufficient in terms of the crime.

The justice system is attempting to meet the problems with respect to sexual assault. The Solicitor General is working towards increasing the understanding and sensitivity of police officers who deal with sexual assault. I have for many years dealt with police officers who have been involved in the investigations of sexual assault. Even in the smaller areas, they now have an officer who is trained and who is able to deal appropriately and properly with respect to helping out the victims of sexual assault.

I also must tell this House there are many other things, not just police officers and members who work in the courts, but there are also many doctors who have to be trained and who have to be sensitized to the problem of sexual assault.

We heard the announcement yesterday by the Solicitor General about attempting to make more officers better trained in dealing with sexual assault and doing away with the polygraph test with respect to victims.

In the brief time I have left, I find I cannot support the resolution of the member for Burlington South. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to debate this and discuss it in the House, but I cannot support the thrust of the resolution. This is not the time for a committee to review and inquire into this particular problem. This is not the time, as my friend has indicated, to allow people to come forward and tell their stories. That time has passed. The issue has been isolated, the issue has been acknowledged and the issue is being addressed. This government is responding. This is the time for action. This is the time that we as members of the House should recognize all the hard work that has been done by members of the various groups supporting and fighting the battle against sexual assault. We must be in the forefront of this battle ourselves.

Although I cannot support this resolution, I hope that all members of this House will join with me in the nonpartisan political sense and say: “This is the time for action. This is the time for us to ask the government to proceed in the way it has been.” We must realize that sexual assault is a crime and that we must deal with it as such by a positive direction, not by just one more committee.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Burlington South has 90 seconds.

Mr. Jackson: I would like to thank my New Democratic Party colleague for her support, but I would point out that the report of the standing committee on social development was on family violence, not on rape and the government’s attitude and the court’s attitude to such a delicate subject. It would be a first in Ontario and it is long overdue.

The member for Elgin (Miss Roberts) provided a stirring defence of Judge Vannini and other members of our judicial system. Her remarks are truly remarkable. If this Liberal government is going to turn down a simple motion such as this, which would provide an opportunity for rape victims to come and talk to legislators, if it is not going to endorse that, then those issues will have to be raised consistently in this House, and that is inappropriate as well.

Government is expected to lead. It had better start showing some leadership. The member for Elgin must read the report of the Metro Action Committee on Public Violence Against Women and Children, which shows that there is not improvement, that there are still problems associated with certain attitudes, and that is the core of it.

The minister himself, the member for York Centre (Mr. Sorbara), has indicated he wants nothing to do with this kind of public accountability. In fact, in Orders and Notices today, was an amendment to this resolution, standing as resolution 39, which addressed each and every one of the concerns the minister responsible conveyed to me. Yet he and he alone said he would withdraw the unanimous consent necessary to modify the motion. He has absolutely no commitment on this issue and he does not want to have to stand and look at a report so that --

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

1200

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

The House divided on Mr. Breaugh’s motion of resolution 32, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, Morin-Strom, Pollock, Reville, Sterling, Swart, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Nays

Ballinger, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Collins, Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Furlong, Henderson, Kozyra, Lipsett, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McGuinty, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Offer, Owen, Pelissero, Poirier, Poole, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. I., Sorbara, South, Sullivan, Tatham, Velshi.

Ayes 19; nays 44.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

The House divided on Mr. Jackson’s motion of resolution 37, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Henderson, Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, Morin-Strom, Philip, Pollock, Pouliot, Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Swart, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Nays

Ballinger, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Furlong, Kozyra, Lipsett, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuinty, Miller, Morin;

Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Offer, Owen, Pelissero, Poirier, Poole, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South, Sullivan, Tatham, Velshi.

Ayes 24; nays 45.

The House recessed at 12:20 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PHOSPHATE DEPOSITS

Mr. Laughren: A couple of years ago, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines commissioned a study to investigate the viability of developing the phosphate deposits in Cargill township, near Kapuskasing, and combining those phosphate deposits with the sulphur from the smelters in northern Ontario to produce fertilizer in the north.

At the present time, all phosphate rocks are imported into Canada and are combined with acids and other things to produce fertilizer. The value of that fertilizer market is in excess of $100 million per year. The consultants’ study indicated that by 1992 there was going to be a demand for more fertilizer in Ontario and other parts of Canada, recommended that the deposits be developed and indicated that the next move was for the Ontario government to commission the final phase of the study.

For years, the Sudbury community has been breathing and eating acid. It is time now to do something useful with it and it is time this government took the lead and used some of the money from the northern Ontario heritage fund to get this project off the drawing board. It is time for a fertilizer plant to be built in the community of Sudbury.

CAMP BIG CANOE

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to bring to the attention of members of this House and the people of Ontario a great fund-raising campaign that is being launched this summer by Camp Big Canoe. They are having a magnificent canoe-a-thon through northern Ontario wilderness areas with four large canoes. It is an opportunity for the people of Ontario to support a camp that has been teaching children life skills for many, many years.

For over 50 years now, Camp Big Canoe has been in operation, doing a wonderful job helping young people learn more about themselves and more about life. Located on Hart Lake in Muskoka country, near Bracebridge, this is a camp that has a great future but needs financial support at this stage. So a canoe-a-thon is being staged this summer, by which we hope to earn $250,000 towards a goal of over $750,000 over several years. Twelve campers will travel approximately 100 kilometres in northern Ontario wilderness in four canoes.

We just hope that there will be sponsors who come forward and say, “Yes, we too would like to support the work of this great camp.” If they are interested, we hope they will just make note of Camp Big Canoe. They can get more information by writing Post Office Box 415, Markham, Ontario, 13P 9Z9.

I am especially pleased that the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) and I are both patrons of this worthy project and hope others will participate as well.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr. Tatham: Just a wee deoch an doris

Just a wee drop, that’s all

And Oliver Mowat carried the ball.

He fought for autonomy of the province’s rights

Way back in ‘96, that was the fight

Controlling the sale of barleycorn hops

Provincial autonomy came out on top.

And now Peter Newman says in Maclean’s

The pizza contents, oh, what a shame.

Could we lose mozzarella, the Canadian brand,

And help dairy farmers in faraway lands?

The chickens that feather and gain every day,

Do we wave farewell to the Canadian way?

What say you, good friends of the marketing board,

With rifles reversed at the cenotaph stand?

Is this trade agreement the best for our land?

Countervail duties for Canadian hogs,

But that’s free trade, says an Ottawa cog.

The wealth of advice from Simon we’ve heard.

Oh! sez McCain, that wise Florenceville bird,

According to Harrison, our food business will suffer.

He contradicts Reisman, that free-trading duffer.

So prepare yourself well, when soon could it be?

One anthem we’ll sing to the land of the free:

Goodbye to the wine from the grapes of Niagara,

Goodbye to the chickens, goodbye to the cream,

Marketing boards just a faint dream.

Shuffle the cards, deal one, two, three.

Please, sir, may I?

What! say thee.

WINTARIO BONUS PRIZES

Mr. Hampton: The government spends a great deal of money each year promoting the sale of its lottery tickets among residents of the province. In fact, the citizens of the province are literally inundated with television and newspaper ads urging them to purchase Wintario, Lottario and the like. These ads are very successful. Millions of people across the province, including northern Ontario residents, do purchase the $1 Wintario tickets in the hope of winning the big prize, but also in the hope of winning the smaller but significant bonus prize.

Imagine the surprise of all of the residents of northern Ontario when they looked at their June 2 Wintario tickets and found that they would not be eligible for the bonus prize, because to be eligible for the bonus prize, you have to have a Sunoco gas station in your area and there are not any Sunoco gas stations north of North Bay or Englehart.

Amazing, is it not? Amazing. The province promotes the sale of lottery tickets supposedly for the benefit of the province and then offers on the lottery tickets bonus prizes which basically rule out one million people in the province from being able to take advantage of the bonus prize.

It is bad enough that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) makes our gas very expensive, but it is even worse when the government takes away from the people of northern Ontario a chance to take a little bonus.

LIQUOR LICENCE BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Harris: We have all become familiar with the tendency of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to speak before he thinks. I would like to remind members, most of whom were not here, about a cheap shot during the 1985 campaign.

For more than three years now, a cloud, a kind of red haze, has been hanging over the heads of employees at the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. It stems from allegations made during the election by the Premier that inspectors were pressuring licensees to contribute to the Progressive Conservative Party. These charges have never been substantiated. The Premier has had three years to back up his allegations with facts or to clear the names of those government employees.

He has done neither. The minister responsible for the LCBO told the House two and a half years ago he would review the situation and respond in the Legislature. He has failed to do so. The reason is obvious. The Premier’s allegations were false. It was a dirty, political cheap shot by the leader of the Liberal Party to tarnish his opponents at the expense of government workers. The level to which this Liberal leader would stoop does not surprise us, but we all expect more from a Premier of Ontario.

Professional reputations were unfairly attacked. The Premier was wrong. A formal apology, even at this late date, must be made.

PORTUGAL NATIONAL DAY

Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and my colleagues, I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event that dates back 408 years and which has been celebrated as Portugal National Day since 1880.

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

1340

Yet, as important as the economic contributions are, the attention of Canadian-Portuguese children today is focused not on the prosperity and wealth that opportunities in Canada create, but on our democratic system of government that allows the people in our multicultural society of Ontario to celebrate a national literary hero of their forefathers’ original homeland as a right.

Indeed, Luiz de Camoes is an intellectual giant whose footsteps have crossed centuries of time and the Atlantic Ocean to implant into Canada a great heritage of love for literature, poetry and education. Therefore, in recognition of this special day, the government of Ontario proclaims --

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

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for ministerial statements, on Tuesday last, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) rose on a question of privilege, stating that he had received information from the translation service regarding the Thom commission report which stated:

“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.”

He also quoted the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosek) from Hansard on November 16, 1987, as follows, “The Thom commission report is actually in the process of being translated, and when it is, it will be released.”

The honourable member then asked that the House refer this question to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to determine whether the minister intentionally or inadvertently lied to the House.

In examining these facts, I have undertaken to determine whether or not they constitute a prima facie case of privilege because that is the only way in which the door can be opened to a motion being put that could send this matter to a standing committee. During comments on this question of privilege, the Minister of Housing had this to say: “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.”

It would appear to me what the House is faced with here is an example of what Beauchesne refers to as “a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of facts.” Beauchesne’s fifth edition, page 12, makes it very clear that this “does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.”

Furthermore, my opinion is reinforced by the very words I quoted previously from the Minister of Housing.

It is a well-accepted idiom of our parliamentary tradition and practice that honourable members and the House have an obligation to accept the word of another honourable member. I must therefore declare that I cannot, in this case, find that a prima fade case of privilege exists and therefore no motion can be put to the House to have this matter referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

I thank the honourable member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would advise the members of the House that the ruling has been made. They are aware of the rules of the proceedings in this House. A Speaker can certainly be challenged. However, there is no debate on the matter.

Mr. Harris: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if you could tell me if, in your opinion, there is anything stopping the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly from asking for an investigation into this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I do not believe that is a point of privilege; it is a question. To my knowledge, any matters that go before any committee of this House must be given at the direction of this House.

Mr. Harris: Are you saying, Mr. Speaker, that the Legislative Assembly committee -- I think it is a well-established practice that any matter can be taken to that committee. Are you saying that is not the case?

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have heard my comment on your question.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, that has not been the case of parliamentary practice over a long period of time. Could I ask you to reflect on that before you make a final decision?

Mr. Speaker: I believe the honourable member heard my comment in that regard.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no other choice but to ask the House, shall the ruling of the Speaker be upheld?

1418

The House divided on the Speaker’s ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fontaine, Furlong, Grandmaître, Hart, Henderson, Hosek, Kerrio, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella;

MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neill, Y., Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Peterson, Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Roberts, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Wilson, Wong, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, McCague, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Swart, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Ayes 70; nays 26.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEART AND CIRCULATORY DISEASES

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Heart disease and stroke are the number one killers of Canadians. In Ontario, 40 per cent of all deaths in 1986 were due to heart and circulatory disease. What is more, this group of diseases is a major cause of premature disability; it disrupts lives and sidelines productive individuals.

We know, however, that these conditions are often largely preventable. Lifestyle choices, including smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise, can be major contributors. Worldwide research has shown conclusively that reducing known lifestyle risks significantly reduces the risk of death or disability due to heart and circulatory disease.

In keeping with my ministry’s objective to balance treatment programs with programs in health promotion and disease prevention, I am today announcing a major expansion of our province-wide prevention and treatment program for heart and circulatory diseases.

New funding for the enhanced program totals $18 million and encompasses new initiatives and expanded services. Included are a new $1-million heart health promotion program for community-based prevention and education programs; the appointment of a cardiovascular co-ordinator within the ministry to oversee all programs for heart and circulatory disease; a central registry pilot project for patients requiring heart surgery, and a major expansion of facilities for heart surgery.

The $1 million in new funding for health promotion is in addition to the $1.5-million, three-year healthy lifestyles media campaign we are launching this fall, aimed at reducing smoking and alcohol consumption and increasing nutrition awareness. Recently, I also announced the first health promotion grants in a $1-million program for community-based prevention projects.

The central registry will be established initially in Toronto as a pilot project, with a view to expanding across the province at a later date. As the ministry shifts its focus from being chiefly a funder of treatment programs to planning based on health outcomes, the data collected by the registry will therefore be used in measuring the effect of cardiovascular surgery on the overall health status of Ontarians.

I am also announcing the expansion of heart and circulatory care facilities in Toronto, Ottawa and London.

In Toronto, the three heart surgery units will increase their collective cardiac surgery case load by 400 cases per year to 3,100 almost immediately. Plans for a fourth unit at Sunnybrook Medical Centre will be accelerated. We expect it to be in operation by the end of the year. Initially, the new Sunnybrook unit will handle 300 cases per year.

In Ottawa, the Heart Institute at Ottawa Civic Hospital will receive a base funding increase of $2.9 million to expand its service capacity, including its artificial heart program.

Victoria Hospital and the University Hospital in London will receive one-time grants and increased operating funds totalling $976,000 to expand their heart diagnostic and treatment services.

As I announced previously, services in other centres are already being expanded. Sudbury Memorial Hospital is increasing its heart surgery case load from 300 to 400 patients per year.

In Hamilton, the $80-million redevelopment of Hamilton Civic Hospitals at the Hamilton General site will allow the hospital to increase its cardiac surgery above the level of 500 cases per year.

The initiatives announced today will greatly expand our ability to care for individuals with heart disease and related conditions. We must remember, however, that the answer to premature death and disability caused by these diseases lies largely in developing prevention techniques and programs as well as treatments.

My ministry is therefore committed to renewing the emphasis in Ontario health care on disease prevention and health promotion. This is the direction in which we expect to achieve real measurable gains in the future.

Mr. Morin-Strom: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health today has not made a statement of clarification in regard to an announcement she made two days ago in this House on renal dialysis services going to the province, in which she announced that $984,000 in annual operating funds to expand a haemodialysis program at Plummer Memorial Public Hospital in Sault Ste. Marie was to take place.

Since that time in the last few days, her officials have told the hospital officials and others in Sault Ste. Marie that that hospital is only receiving $595,000. I would ask whether the minister will correct her record or --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened to the member’s point. I would suggest you place that during question period.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Again?

Mr. Speaker: Again.

1430

NORTHERN TREATMENT CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am pleased to announce today developments in the creation of the Ministry of Correctional Services’ network of regional treatment facilities.

Just less than one year ago, this ministry acknowledged the treatment needs of offenders from northern Ontario by announcing that a 96-bed assessment and treatment institution would be built in Sault Ste. Marie. At that time, we had worked out an agreement in principle with the Solicitor General of Canada to share on a 50-50 basis the costs of building and operating a treatment centre for inmates who could benefit from the various therapeutic programs designed to deal with the many problems which may very well be contributing to their conflict with the law.

I am very pleased to report today that the plans that were put forth a year ago are coming to pass in Sault Ste. Marie. Tomorrow, I will be joining the Solicitor General of Canada, the Honourable James Kelleher, to sign a federal-provincial agreement which will enable the northern treatment centre to begin.

At the same time, we will be taking part in a sod-turning ceremony to officially mark the beginning of the development of the new centre on a 14-acre site adjacent to the F. J. Davey Home and the Extendicare nursing home on Great Northern Road in Sault Ste. Marie.

The northern treatment centre will be built and operated as a provincial facility. The construction will be supervised by the Ministry of Government Services, under the direction of my colleague the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten). In exchange for the federal funding, the Ministry of Correctional Services will provide up to 48 beds for federal offenders in need of treatment services.

Specific programs to be offered at the centre will include substance-abuse counselling, anger management therapy, individual and group counselling, intervention for depression and anxiety, as well as programs for intellectually and developmentally handicapped individuals. Services will be available to women as well as men.

The northern treatment centre will be of particular benefit to offenders from northern Ontario who might otherwise have to be transported great distances from their homes to centres in southern Ontario.

It will also be of benefit to Sault Ste. Marie. In the short term, it will bring the positive impact of a major construction initiative, with all the attendant economic spinoff. Over the long term, it will bring added stability to the economy of the region, with the creation of 105 new jobs in the fields of psychology, social work, psychiatry, nursing, administration and correctional supervision.

Total cost of the northern treatment centre, including land cost, construction, architectural and engineering, fees and landscaping will be in excess of $13 million. The annual operating cost of this facility will be nearly $6 million.

The Ministry of Correctional Services is pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the government’s northern initiatives. The development of the northern treatment centre represents a recognition of the needs of northern communities.

NORTHERN ONTARIO / LE NORD DE L’ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I take great pleasure today in announcing that the government has redefined northern Ontario to include all of the 10 territorial districts for the purposes of government policy and program administration. This will give official recognition to all residents of the Parry Sound district and the Nipissing district as bona fide constituents of that special area of the province we call northern Ontario.

L’agenda de mon gouvernement pour le Nord de l’Ontario, c’est précisément l’agenda établi par les habitants du Nord de l’Ontario. C’est dans cette optique qu’il y a deux ans, nous avons initié une consultation avec les Conseils de développement du Nord, la Fédération des municipalités du Nord de l’Ontario et les différents intervenants du milieu dans le but de procéder à l’intégration complète des citoyens de Parry Sound et du territoire de Nipissing dans le Nord de l’Ontario.

The government has an agenda for northern Ontario, that being the agenda of the people of northern Ontario. Two years ago, we initiated a consultation process with a view to integrating the populations of the district of Parry Sound and the Nipissing district as fully fledged residents of northern Ontario. This should have been done 10 years ago. This consultation was made in collaboration with the northern development councils, the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities and different interested parties. The result of this consultation is the redefinition of northern Ontario which will take effect on April 1, 1989.

The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines was created in recognition of the special social and economic needs of the region known as northern Ontario. We acknowledge that the people of Parry Sound and Nipissing indeed share those special needs and that they deserve access to the special government programs established to address them.

Official inclusion in northern Ontario will give individuals, institutions and organizations access to specific programs oriented to northern needs. For the people of Parry Sound and Nipissing, particularly those living south of Algonquin Park and the French River, this means being treated in a consistent fashion with other northern districts by all government ministries.

Je suis convaincu que les membres de cette Chambre, ainsi que les résidents des territoires de Parry Sound et de Nipissing, accueilleront chaleureusement cette initiative de mon gouvernement.

I believe that the members of the Legislature and the residents of Parry Sound and Nipissing will wholeheartedly welcome this initiative.

APARTMENT BUILDING INCINERATORS

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am pleased to inform the House that a regulation prohibiting the operation of Ontario’s 1,200 existing apartment building incinerators will go into effect May 31, 1989.

Our government has decided to impose this ban to protect public health and the environment from dangerous and unacceptable air pollution produced by these inefficient incinerators. The ban addresses complaints about black smoke, fly ash and odours given off by these old-fashioned incinerators.

Few apartment building incinerators have been constructed since the mid-1960s because of municipal bylaws and municipal agreements with developers and builders. Consequently, most incinerators operating today are outdated and inefficient.

In 1986, my ministry tested 11 apartment incinerators. The tests found that emissions of total hydrocarbons, including dioxins and furans, exceeded in all 11 cases the standards specified in regulation 308 under the Environmental Protection Act. Combustion efficiency was also unacceptable.

A draft of the new regulation prohibiting apartment incinerators was submitted for a public review last year; 51 written responses were received. Support for the proposed regulation outnumbered opposition four and a half to one.

The concerns of landlords needing to install compactors or storage facilities were recognized by extending the date of implementation from December 31, 1988, to May 31, 1989. The regulation will be promulgated within a few weeks, but I am making the announcement today to give landlords as much notice as possible.

About half of the approximately 1,200 apartment buildings affected are in Metro Toronto.

Switching from incineration to garbage compaction or bulk storage should be a fairly straightforward process. About 2,000 apartment buildings have made the change during the past 18 years.

This regulation will both reduce potentially adverse health effects from exposure to persistent toxic chemicals generated by these incinerators and improve air quality, especially in densely populated urban centres such as Metropolitan Toronto.

The elimination of this source of air pollution is a step in improving our general quality of life in Ontario.

MUNICIPAL ENUMERATION / L’ÉNUMÉRATION MUNICIPALE

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The honourable members will be aware that the Ministry of Revenue mailed over 4.6 million bilingual municipal enumeration notices to Ontario households at the end of April.

I am very pleased to report that this enumeration was extremely successful, as over 75 per cent of Ontario residents completed and returned the notices on time.

Monsieur le Président, aujourd’hui, c’est avec plaisir que je vous informe que cette opération a eu un très grand succès: plus de 75 pour cent des formulaires de recensement ont déjà été remplis et retournés à mon ministère.

I would like to thank all the members of this House for their great efforts in providing assistance to their constituents and supporting this project. Through their co-operation and the co-ordination of my ministry, the ministries of Municipal Affairs, Education, and Citizenship and the Office of Francophone Affairs, we have helped to ensure that eligible voters are correctly identified on the voters’ list for the Ontario municipal elections in November.

On June 1, 1988, enumerators began personal visits to those households which did not return their enumeration notice, and where no one is home, they will be leaving a copy of the original form.

Le 1^er juin, les énumérateurs provinciaux ont commencé à visiter les ménages qui n’ont pas encore retourné leur formulaire de recensement. Je vous précise que dans les régions désignées, nous aurons des énumérateurs bilingues disponibles pour aider à remplir les formulaires.

Again, I call on the assistance of the honourable members in encouraging these residents to check and return their enumeration forms to my ministry as soon as possible. Anyone requiring assistance in completing the form can contact his local regional assessment office.

By the end of August, voter identification notices will be mailed, noting all eligible voters and indicating their school board support.

Les avis aux électeurs seront postés à chaque ménage à la fin du mois d’août de cette année.

I am confident that the success of this new enumeration system will lay a solid foundation for municipal elections in the fall and stronger local governments across Ontario.

1440

Ms. Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not have a copy of the minister’s statement, and I am the Revenue critic.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We have it here.

Mr. Speaker: It has been delivered? Thank you.

RESPONSES

HEART AND CIRCULATORY DISEASES

Mr. Reville: It is with some regret that I rise to respond to the statement of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). It is not very often that the opposition gets a chance to crow under the weight of this government. Of course, the Minister of Health has just gone to Sweden. I am glad she has gone to Sweden; she is going to look at their health care system there.

Day after day in this Legislature, this opposition, this side of the House, has badgered the government about its failures in terms of cardiovascular surgery. The minister, in the context of hospitals in trouble, in the context of refusing to release 20-odd operational reviews, makes dribbling announcements about this program and that program -- a program on renal dialysis earlier this week; another program, a laudable program, on heart and circulatory disease today -- without telling us what the government’s plans are overall for the health care system. These spending announcements are one-sided.

While we welcome, of course, the increasing emphasis on the prevention of heart and circulatory diseases and we note and agree that lifestyle choices including smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise are indeed major contributors, I think it is shocking for one minister to get up in the House and talk about poor diet and to hear absolute silence on the part of other ministers of this government in respect of thousands of children living in poverty in the province because the government has refused to act to provide people with the wherewithal so that they can have a decent diet.

I really hope the Minister of Health has a chance, while sitting around the cabinet table, to make this point over and over again.

APARTMENT BUILDING INCINERATORS

Mrs. Grier: It is profoundly disappointing that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has extended the deadline by which apartment incinerators have to conform to his new regulation.

May I point out to the minister that very many apartment owners have conformed with the anticipated date of December 31, 1988. I really regret that he has bowed to the lobbying of the landlords, presumably, and extended it to May 31, 1989.

As he said himself, most of the apartment buildings which still have incinerators are outdated and inefficient and were built in the 1960s. Many of them ought to have been shut down ages ago if he was really enforcing his existing air pollution regulations.

This is just the latest in a series of deadlines which have not been met. Regulation 308 itself was supposed to have been in place and approved by now and we have not seen a single regulation under the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. This is yet another example of backsliding on the environment on the part of this government.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Laughren: I rise to welcome Parry Sound to near-northern Ontario and commend the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) for all the work he has done in making this happen.

I did want to point out an omission in the minister’s statement, however. The minister forgot to include in his statement that there would be an increase in the northern Ontario heritage fund now that the amount in there is going to have to be spread over more ridings. I think the minister should rise in his place and correct that omission.

MUNICIPAL ENUMERATION

Ms. Bryden: I would like to point out that I do not think the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) can crow about the success of his assessment program while there are still 25 per cent of households not in. That is the crucial group, and we have to see whether they send them in.

The other thing is that he says he will mail out by the end of August voter-identification notices noting all eligible voters. What I would like to know is, will individual notices go to each member of the household or will there just be one notice that the other person has to transmit to all members of the household? They may never communicate with each other. I think there should be individual notices.

I do not think we can say that the system is 100 per cent effective until we see how it works out in the final voters’ lists and the completeness of those voters’ lists when they are prepared, and whether people are put in the correct categories as far as public and separate support, francophone voting and other matters of that nature are concerned.

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

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Eves: It is indeed with some pleasure that I am able to rise today and compliment the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) on his announcement in the House today.

I indeed know something of the efforts that the minister has had to make on behalf of the residents of Parry Sound and Nipissing. I know it has been difficult at times to convince his cabinet colleagues that this measure should be taken, but I am glad that it has in fact been taken at long last. There are many individuals who receive recognition in this ongoing battle. It has been going on for some period of time. Indeed, I am pleased to see today, finally, that on April 1, 1989, the district of Parry Sound will be included in northern Ontario for the purposes of all government ministries, boards, agencies and commissions.

As I said, I congratulate the minister on his sincerity and on the amount of effort that he has given to this very worthwhile enterprise. In fact, I think justice has indeed been done today with respect to this announcement.

HEART AND CIRCULATORY DISEASES

Mr. Eves: With respect to the announcement by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) in the Legislature this afternoon, I am pleased to say that I am happy that she has taken the initiative to increase the cardiovascular surgery capacity of virtually every cardiovascular unit in Ontario. It did take, however, some prompting by many opposition members to bring the matter to the attention of the minister over a period of several weeks and to finally get her to act on this very important matter.

We all know that nobody likes to face the reality that there was some four months’ average waiting time for patients on the list for cardiovascular surgery in Ontario and that many people have lost their lives on the waiting list for this very important surgical procedure. I would also like to compliment the many cardiovascular surgeons who had the courage of their convictions to raise this matter to the public’s attention and to finally get some action out of the Ministry of Health that is much needed.

I would hope that the minister is thinking, when she is making her announcement, that she is also going to increase the staffing capacity, especially nursing staff, who are highly specialized in this particular area, and include that in her announcement -- not only in her announcement but in the increased funding and capacity that she is giving to the hospitals as well. I indeed think it is a very worthwhile announcement and I am sure it is one that in the weeks and months ahead will save many people’s lives in Ontario.

Mr. Sterling: While we are pleased with the Minister of Health’s announcement today with regard to these improved services for heart patients, I am chagrined to hear again the Minister of Health talk about preventive health care measures. We would not have had to spend this money had this government taken any kind of steps with regard to the habit of smoking.

This particular government has done nothing to help people who are addicted to nicotine to get off that habit. It has cut back on the public education program with regard to smoking, and it has stood by while a courageous federal government has taken a number of steps to deal with the problem of smoking in the workplace and advertising of tobacco products.

Most heart disease is caused as a result of smoking. The largest killer, in terms of the results of nicotine addiction, results in heart disease. While this government has added money to take care of this problem, perhaps some of this money would not have been needed if it had been courageous and done something with regard to the real cause.

1450

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Harris: I want to take the few seconds available to congratulate the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves). He has had an unending fight for the last 10 years to include Parry Sound in northern Ontario. For the first seven years, he was able to achieve seven ministries --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: -- then for three years nothing happened and now, finally, he has all of Parry Sound included in northern Ontario.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Reville: In view of the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I would like to ask a question of the Premier, perhaps in his capacity as chair of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy. The question is about community health centres. I wonder when the Premier is going to bring his government into some kind of congruence in terms of the rhetoric and the performance about community health centres.

When will we see the actual funding and organizational assistance that is needed to expand this very real alternative to open-ended, fee-for-service systems of medicine?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are working on a number of matters right now and I am sorry I do not have any new information to share with my honourable friend today.

Mr. Reville: I regret to hear that answer. Two weeks ago, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health was in Sault Ste. Marie speaking to the Association of Ontario Health Centres. He also delivered a kind of mixed message, not dissimilar from the message the Premier has just shared with the House. He said, “Health promotion is certain to be the wave of the future,” and that CHCs and health service organizations will have a key role in its delivery. I think what we need to know now is: why the future, why not now?

The growth in the community health centre and HSO sector of the health service delivery mechanism has been very tiny. For every dollar the government spends on health, only one third of a cent is spent on community health centres and HSOs. Can the Premier give us any idea of when this government is going to get serious about establishing real alternatives to a health system which is going out of control in terms of cost?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate what the honourable member is saying. There are a number of proposals being worked on at the present time. The minister brought in legislation last week for a regulatory framework for this new approach. I accept that the honourable member wants to accuse the government of not moving quickly enough on this matter, but I think the minister has articulated the philosophy of the government in that regard.

I am just sorry, as I said, that I cannot give him a specific announcement today of a specific program.

Mr. Reville: From the Premier’s own lips this summer came a goal which the government wanted to set for itself. That was that within five years the government wanted to double the number of people served by community health centres and HSOs. Let me explain to the House what that means. That would bring the number of people served from two per cent of our population to four per cent of our population over five years.

Will the Premier now make a renewed commitment to revise this goal upward? “The wave of the future” -- at the moment, the government is developing barely a ripple. Will the Premier actually increase the commitment today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know my honourable friend, understanding government as he does, would not expect me to make an announcement today just in response to his question. Maybe he would; perhaps I gave him credit for more understanding than he had of the way the government works.

I say that we have articulated our view. A substantial number of commitments have been made in community-based medicine -- that is a major priority -- and independent living for seniors. I could go through a long list of initiatives this government has undertaken.

Mr. Reville: That doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend is not too impressed with 100 per cent increases, and I understand that, but I remember that sometimes you can take solace from doubling your performance or doubling your sights. I remember when I was the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, I went to make a speech to a group one night and there were two people there. I went back a year later and there were four people there, and I considered that a major improvement. I think the member should perhaps consider it the same way.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday he appeared to be quite content that the price for houses in Metro had gone up $9,000 in a month. He did not seem at all disturbed that you had to have an income of $80,000 to qualify for a mortgage, or bothered in the least that 97 per cent of the tenants in this community could not qualify for a mortgage to purchase a house in Metro.

Is the view from a mansion in Rosedale so different that he does not even understand the needs of all of these people?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think we do understand the needs and that is why we have the massive programs we are undertaking at the present time.

Mr. Breaugh: Does the Premier not understand that all this speculation in real estate, both in single-family homes and in apartment buildings, is ruining whatever attempts he might be making to provide affordable housing; that the nonaction on the part of the government to introduce a land speculation tax or to provide some assistance so that people can actually afford to buy their own homes is destroying any attempts that his government might consider to provide affordable housing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member’s solution to the problem is a land speculation tax, and we have shared with him before that is not our solution.

Mr. Breaugh: It is amazing that the Premier of Ontario has no concern at all.

Is it the view of the government that the city of Toronto and Metro are now going to become the exclusive domain of those who earn in excess of $80,000 a year, which essentially would be the double-income, no-kids syndrome? Are they consciously trying to turn Metro Toronto into something it has fought for so long? It has fought to retain its own neighbourhoods; it has fought to retain a sense of community and a good mixture of income groups. Why is the Premier determined to turn it into some kind of dink city?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Usually, I very much enjoy my friend opposite and he makes worthwhile and fair-minded contributions in this House. I frankly reject the premises on which he has based his comments and I do not think his characterization of the problem is at all fair.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt).

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether that applause is for me or for the last response, but I deeply appreciate the applause. Thank you.

[Applause]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Sarnia; and to which minister?

CIVIL SERVANTS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier and it is with respect to conflict-of-interest guidelines. Could the Premier share with the House what the intentions of his government are in connection with extending the guidelines to cover senior public servants and also senior staff members of ministers?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can tell my honourable friend that we do not have a conclusion I can report to him today in that regard. It is something that we have wrestled with in the past. I am sure my honourable friend would understand the difficulty that confronts the government, and indeed all members of the Legislature, in that regard.

Obviously, starting off, we cannot support any situation where someone takes advantage of a position here to further personal interest or some corporate interest. One could look at a reasonable cooling-off period in that time.

On the other hand, my honourable friend, I am sure, would agree with me that there is a real merit in having people from private enterprise come into government, in and out of government, to encourage that transference back and forth.

The other question that had to be raised was how far down the system it should go. Should it be deputy ministers? Why not assistant deputy ministers? Why not directors? Why not people who handle the files? Should everybody in the public service be included, and political assistants, as my honourable friend speaks about, as well?

His question raises many other questions. I can tell him our bottom line is very clear and we cannot support any system where anybody takes advantage of his position in government to further his own financial interests. But I do not have a specific answer for my friend today.

1500

Mr. Brandt: As the Premier is aware, there are guidelines that could be used as a model for his government which exist at the moment at the federal level. They have a 12-month cooling-off period at the federal level with respect to senior staff. I would point out to the members opposite and to the Premier that our party proposed amendments that would provide additional coverage of the type we would certainly support with respect to senior public servants.

My colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) proposed a resolution before this House that led to exactly the same conclusion, that the guidelines as they are established now are far too weak and are not nearly as comprehensive as we feel are necessary. I share with the Premier the concern he has about the line to be drawn and at what point that line should be drawn. How deep into the civil service does one go?

In introducing this question today, I have suggested that there should be guidelines that are applicable to senior civil servants and senior ministry staff. Will the government consider such guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me simply say I view the honourable member’s suggestion as a constructive one. As the member knows, his government and our government traditionally have viewed public servants as honourable people who would not take advantage of the situation. He is also aware that a number of deputies have left over the last few years and it is a constant state of transition. But I think, inside the context of the questions I raised, it is a very worthwhile subject for discussion and I do not by any means reject action in this area. I am interested in his ideas on it and on whom should be included. What about political assistants of members of Parliament?

There are a lot of questions that should be raised. And how far should this thing go down the system? I think that is a serious matter, worthy of discussion by all members of this House. I appreciate the member’s constructive ideas.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to provide some constructive ideas and I would suggest to the Premier that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) did not give any indication whatever that he was prepared to bring in amendments that would provide coverage in the areas that concern our party.

Hon. Mr. Scott: You never asked for them.

Mr. Brandt: We have asked the Attorney General in committee, since he wants an answer to his question. I would also suggest that his party has consistently voted against the extension of guidelines that would provide the kind of coverage that we are looking for and the kind of guarantees, quite frankly, that we feel the public of Ontario warrants, at this time.

I would like to ask the Premier, since we cannot get a clear-cut answer from him today with respect to a time frame in which he will bring in certain guidelines, when can we expect that the legislation that he has proposed, relative to his own ministers will be firmly in place in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to the member’s second question, as he knows, a nominee has been submitted to him and to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) with respect to that particular position.

We would like to have his support on that matter, and once that is achieved, then the bill will be proclaimed and the commissioner appointed. That is where we are on that matter.

REGULATION OF BOILERS

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I am assuming he will be familiar with the Miura Boiler Co. of Japan. I gather he has been approached by the member for York North (Mr. Beer) and, also, there have been some press reports on this issue.

I wonder if the minister could advise the House why he rejected his advisory board’s recommendations and allowed the Miura boiler entry to the Ontario market.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think it would be useful for the honourable member to know that the recommendations from the board of review, which were sent to me in late November or early December 1987, were not to reject the Miura boiler, but simply to ask that we not make a piecemeal amendment to the regulations and wait until the entire Operating Engineers Act was ready for full amendment and for full introduction in the Legislature.

That certainly would have been normally, I say to my honourable friend, my own view of the situation. But in the case of Miura, I was faced with the situation that the company, which was prepared to establish a facility in Brantford, was not prepared to do so until such time as it literally had the regulation in place.

The board had no objection to the regulation. It simply wants to get on with the whole matter, both the amendments to the act and the regulatory changes as a package. I informed Mr. Cullain and the members of the board of review of our view that we would have to move with this as an individual change, notwithstanding their views, and the appropriate regulatory changes were introduced as a result.

Mr. Runciman: The minister raises the question of the report and I would like to quote from it. It says, “The proposed amendment by Miura would be perceived publicly as a special dispensation for a foreign competitor.”

Some time ago, two of the minister’s officials went to Japan to inspect the boiler made by Miura to see if that design should be permitted in Ontario. Their expenses were paid by Miura. The company also paid for the expenses of the wife of one of the officials. On the recommendation of these officials and contrary to the unanimous advice of the ministry’s board of review, the minister changed the regulations and approved the design.

One of the officials doing this inspection was prepared to accept a substantial personal benefit from the company he was inspecting, and this destroys any appearance of objectivity. Is the minister prepared to order a new, clearly independent evaluation of this boiler and make the results public?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: In reviewing this situation, I became aware earlier this spring that the cost of the trip to Japan for the wife of the then director, now retired, of the branch had been paid by Miura. The honourable member would know that the payments for the staff are normally made by those companies which wish to be licensed for Ontario rather than the taxpayers. A similar kind of situation is practised in other countries until there is some kind of a reciprocal arrangement set up with those countries, and we are attempting to do that.

On learning of the fact that the cost of the trip of Mr. Wright’s wife had been paid by Miura, since the gentleman had already retired I requested that my officials get in touch with Mr. Wright and ask him, since I had no power any longer to order him, to repay the money. He has done so. I very much regret that the gentleman accepted an unfortunate gratuity, if I can call it that, from the company, and he has recognized the error in making the repayment.

However, I can tell the honourable member that certainly this boiler is safe. The board of review, as recently as this Wednesday -- indeed, two weeks before, when it met with me personally all members said the Miura boiler is safe.

Mr. Runciman: It is an irrelevant answer, really, and the incident is a serious blow to the ministry’s credibility on technical assessments. We must have a set of public guidelines which will clearly demonstrate total objectivity by the ministry and avoid this kind of situation in the future.

Does the minister have any guidelines on who is to pay for technical assessments and how the appearance of favouritism and conflict of interest is to be avoided? If he does, will he table them in the House?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to say to my honourable friend -- and he may disagree and, if so, he may want to state that -- in the past, for a very long period of time, in Ontario and other jurisdictions in Canada and across the world, it has been the approach in this field that the company involved in such evaluations will pay the cost of having the evaluations done and will pay and reimburse the individual for proper expenses which are accounted for. This is a situation which I find most regrettable and I make it very clear that I understand the honourable member’s suggesting that it raises into question the objectivity of the decision.

I have asked the board of review very clearly to review this matter. I want to assure the honour-able member that at a meeting which all members of the board of review, save one, attended in my boardroom about three weeks ago, all of them said that in their technical judgement as experts, which neither he is nor I am, the boiler is safe.

I say to my friend that he should read the entire memo which asks only that the changes proceed --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a fairly comprehensive answer.

1510

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I am sure she will be aware that tonight the Niagara College board will be making its final decision on what programs it is going to cut, to he submitted to her ministry next Tuesday for the minister’s consideration. She also knows that should have been done a couple of months ago because the students there had to make a lot of decisions and many of those decisions have already been made.

I want to remind the minister that last week in answer to my leader’s question as to whether correct procedures had been followed, she said, and I quote from Hansard, “I can certainly assure the member that the college has complied with all the requirements of the ministry.” I want to ask the minister today if she would like to think over that answer a little bit.

Is it not true that the college did not notify the ministry of its proposal to phase out the seven particular programs until at least five weeks and possibly nine weeks after the January 15 deadline set by her ministry?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I indicated in the House last week that Niagara College had followed all the procedures that we require of the colleges; in fact, it had been very conscientious about keeping the ministry informed.

I believe the honourable member when he refers to that specific date may be talking about a memorandum that was issued -- I do not have it in front of me, but I think the date is somewhere around 1982 or 1983 -- by the Council of Regents, an advisory suggestion on the part of the council as to a procedure which might be followed.

If I have the correct memorandum he is referring to, it will also suggest that even with that as a procedure which is recommended -- it is clearly not a ministry directive -- there are also exceptions to be recognized when particular planning processes are required. If that is the specific direction he is referring to, it does not replace the procedures which the ministry requires. I repeat that Niagara College has followed those procedures.

Mr. Swart: In prefacing my supplementary, I want to remind the minister that the memorandum entitled, Policies on Suspending or Phasing Out Council of Regents’ Approved Programs, was sent out by the ministry. It says each college shall advise the director of the college affairs branch annually by January 15 of approved programs under consideration for possible suspension or phasing out for the next academic year. That is what that memorandum says.

The minister ought to realize how silly her program is. Just six days ago, the minister announced $40,000 more for a bilingual secretary program at Niagara College, but because of her timing bungling, she has only two or three viable applicants left for that program at Niagara College, and other programs too may for all practical purposes have gone down the drain by this time.

Why does the minister not simply notify Niagara College today, given the chaos that exists there on the program cuts, that she will fund all the remaining viable programs out of the original seven and, if any more cuts have to be made, do it next year and do it right?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: As the honourable member is well aware and as I have had on a number of occasions to indicate to the House, the Niagara College board of governors is coping with a situation which has now existed and been increasing for some four years. The Niagara College board of governors recognizes the importance of addressing this issue. They have been following procedures.

I indicated some of the aspects of that memorandum which the honourable member did not identify. There is also an indication there that when students are granted admission to a program, that admission is recognized as being conditional on the college being able to continue to make that program available.

Clearly, that does present problems for students who are interested in these programs, but the Niagara College board of governors has been following the procedures and has followed the public declaration. The students are well aware of this. I do support the board of governors, as I have indicated in the past, in dealing with a situation which has been ongoing for some time.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Solicitor General. The minister and her government have neatly packaged the proposed legislation to do with the Retail Business Holidays Act. They have decorated it and painted the slogan “Fair and Enforceable” all over it, but we have yet to see how it could be either fair or enforceable.

For example, in York region on the north side of Steeles Avenue, there are two shopping plazas, and about a half a mile down the road on the south side of Steeles Avenue there is a set of shopping plaza units.

I would like to ask the minister if it is fair that two of these shopping plazas within one region are allowed to open Sundays, while plazas across the street or down the road classified in a different region or municipality are not. Exactly how does she plan to enforce this kind of situation?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I do not have an exact geographic set in my mind as to the place the member for London North is referring to, but I assume it is within regional Metropolitan Toronto. Anything that is decided locally within that region will have to be passed on to the regional board for a final decision. It will be up to them to decide, and they will have to decide according to reasonable and fair rules they have set.

Mrs. Cunningham: It is crystal clear what is really going to happen with this legislation. We will have a clear mishmash, with municipality pitted against municipality, municipality against region, and even region against region.

There is another issue at stake here with this utterly flawed legislation. In Mississauga, there is currently only one bylaw enforcement officer available on weekends. If Sunday shopping is permitted in surrounding municipalities but not in Mississauga, it may be necessary to institute a bylaw enforcement patrol. An estimated cost would be $1,400 on Sunday or $75,000 a year.

Does the minister think this enormous cost is fair to the municipalities of Ontario? How can she claim that this legislation is fair and enforceable when she knows full well it is literally the opposite?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: In the first place, if any of these stores are breaking the law -- and since we are into discussing bylaw enforcement, I presume that might be the case -- then the new injunctive clause in the bill will be very helpful. It states that with an order from the court, which is immediately available, the police authorities can close down a store which is breaking the law, something that is not now possible. As soon as the members give us passage of this bill, that will be possible. That is the first thing.

The second issue, the one of the cost of enforcement by the bylaw officer, has also been looked to. As the member will know, the penalties have been very much increased and, where it is necessary still to use a bylaw enforcement officer, this will be only where the community has changed the provincial framework. Then it would be a bylaw passed by that community allowing it to open or telling it to close. In that case, with any breaking of the law, the money can be collected by that community, which can pay for its own enforcement officers very well.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Pelissero: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The Ontario Waste Management Corp. has submitted a draft environmental assessment to the Ministry of the Environment. Can the minister inform us of the current status of that submission?

Mr. Laughren: I guess with notice he probably can.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Yes, indeed, in this particular case. It is a very fair-minded and very reasonable question the member has, in answer to the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren).

The OWMC, as the members of the House may know, submitted a draft environmental assessment in March 1988 for government agencies’ comments in accordance with the decision of the government to bring the proposal under the full provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act, which it was not prior to this government taking office.

The ministry is currently doing a careful review of the draft environmental assessment document and is co-ordinating government comments on this document. The OWMC will then have to go through the procedure of submitting a final environmental assessment document.

Due to the significance and the complexity of the proposal, the government review, as the member can imagine, will be an extensive process to ensure that all of the concerns which have been raised are dealt with. This is expected, I think, to take approximately seven months.

1520

Both the government and the environmental assessment document will then go out for public comment and any member of the public is free to comment at that time. The public comment period will be followed by a hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board. So it is a rather complex process, a lengthy process. but we think it is very necessary.

Mr. Speaker: Probably a supplementary would help to clarify some of the things.

Mr. Pelissero: As a supplementary, the environmental assessment process that the OWMC is undergoing is being watched closely by those affected by its proposal. Concerns have been raised that the environmental assessment process can be time-consuming, complex and expensive. What steps are being taken to address this concern’?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member may be aware that some time ago, I think it was in April 1988, I announced that we were undertaking a review of the environmental assessment process to make it more efficient while making it just as effective as it is at the present time. This review is, of course, seeking public comment and will make recommendations to improve both the environmental assessment process and the Environmental Assessment Act.

There are two main areas that we are looking at: the understanding and the acceptance of the environmental assessment, and the effectiveness and efficiency of the environmental assessment process.

I do not think there is anyone in the House or anyone in the province who would wish to diminish in any way the process we go through, but I think people on all sides of this question -- both people who think the process takes too long and is too expensive and those who feel it is not comprehensive enough -- recognize that it can be more efficient and that there can be savings gained, so that the costs are not incurred by either the proponent or the opponents. It is the desire of this government to ensure that will happen.

Going through the environmental assessment process for the OWMC will be helpful as well in making this kind of assessment and making the improvements that will be necessary in the future.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Riverdale.

CR170 LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Reville: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I just about nodded off there. In view of the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon), I think I will put my question to the Chairman of Management Board. That is a good idea, is it not?

CR170 is out to bust a union. Why will the government not pull its ads?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There has been an indication in an article yesterday that there would be no placement of new ads, but there are certainly contractual obligations which we feel must be honoured in the current circumstances.

Mr. Reville: I think the Chairman of Management Board is kidding the troops here. This is a government that can cause instant meetings of very powerful people like mayors; it can summon them to meetings. They can have all-nighters at McDonnell Douglas. They have excruciatingly large clout with anybody they want to have clout with.

These contracts must be in the zillions of dollars. Is the minister really saying that, as an advertiser, he cannot call up Douglas Bassett and say, “I want those ads stopped”? Will he not call CR170 today, stop those ads and tell it that this government is not going to connive at a union-busting act?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think it is fair to say -- and I think the honourable gentleman would agree with this -- that in fact this government does not get involved with union-busting activities.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that his characterization of our expenditures as in the zillions of dollars is, as he usually does, making considerable overstatement of the circumstances. I can tell him that I do not think it is fair to make light of a situation by exaggerating to the extent that the honourable gentleman is.

We take this very seriously. We do not want to be involved in looking at any activity that deals with union busting, as he would say this activity would be. We are not placing new ads. That has been made very clear by this government, and I think the honourable gentleman would consider that a fair response under the circumstances.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to recognize the member for Markham to ask a question.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It has to do with the problem that a group of home buyers had, starting three years ago when they put in their offer to purchase homes from Caymor Homes. They put in these offers with the expectation of having a new home, and the builder never registered the lots.

Since then, the builder has had trouble with his financing and has now become refinanced, is looking for more money for those homes than he originally sold them for and will not deal with some of the people he originally sold the homes to. They are now caught without a home and caught without an option.

I would like to know what the minister is prepared to do to help those new home buyers who are being caught by this builder?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think my friend would know that Mr. McLeod has had a number of financing difficulties. But, as of now, he still owns the lots. He is no longer, I would advise the honourable member, registered as a builder. Consequently, someone else would have to build those homes.

In a number of cases -- and the honourable member’s description is correct -- it has been some three years, and it has been a very unfortunate situation. But, in some cases, some of those who had bought homes in the expectation of having them built have gone to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, have received full refunds of their deposits and have moved on. In a number of other cases, people are still hoping to have the homes built and the Ontario New Home Warranty Program is attempting to stand ready to help in any way it can to ensure that gets done.

Mr. Cousens: The problem we have is that there are still people out there who will not have a home now. The builder will not deal with them. They are caught by virtue of the fact they have had three years’ loss of any growth on their investment, and now they are in a position where they are not protected from the incident of the past. There is no one there to help them now.

I am worried about future home buyers because there is nothing now in the provincial legislation or the guidelines that stops builders from selling unregistered lots. There is nothing to stop that practice. There is no stopping unscrupulous builders. This government is not doing anything to stop those builders who are unprincipled and who are allowed to continue to do dealings with these people.

Will the minister come forward with fresh, new legislation that begins to deal with these two major issues, to prevent the selling of unregistered lots and to prevent the continuing existence of unprincipled builders?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: These are issues we would want to look at. But I think the honourable member, being as he is also the Housing critic for his party and one who wishes to have affordable housing built just as quickly as possible, would not want to do anything that would slow down that building.

I would want to say to the honourable gentleman that of the two individuals, Mr. McLeod and the other individual -- whose name escapes me for the moment -- who were involved at the time the registration was given for these houses, Mr. McLeod had experience in financing and the other gentleman had experience as a builder.

Certainly, it was the view of the warranty program at the time that the project was not an onerous one and could be carried out. Regrettably, that has not been the case. It has really been a mess from day one. The honourable member has spoken to me on numerous occasions, as has my colleague the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), in whose riding the homes are located.

We continue to work with the home owners in an effort to ensure that if anything can be done to get those homes built and get them occupied by those who wish to occupy them, that will occur.

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Solicitor General. The regional council of Peel has passed a resolution requesting approval to expand the Peel Regional Police Commission to include the regional chairman as an ex officio member in addition to the council’s two appointees. I believe her office has been in receipt of a number of pieces of correspondence requesting this.

Further to the recent changes approved in this House for the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission, would she be prepared to consider expanding the number of members on the Peel Regional Police Commission board, bearing in mind that it is the second-largest police force in the province?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to assure the member that we are very interested in discussing potential changes in the size of police commissions with those involved.

As the member would know, Toronto went to quite a long and extensive process and, finally, we did get a bill through here just before Christmas enlarging its board from five to seven. However, there is another principle involved in this that is also often discussed between the province and the municipalities, and that is the numbers involved. On a seven-man board, four are provincially appointed and three are locally appointed; a five-man board is three and two; on a three-man board, it is two and one.

This is a separate principle and one where we have always felt very strongly that the province, because it has the overall responsibility to the people of Ontario, has to take responsibility for the majority of appointments. Just by appointing a regional chairman you alter that, but I am quite open to look at the size of the commissions in the context of the discussions we would be having.

1530

Mr. Mahoney: On the question of the balance of power in the police commission, would the minister be willing to consider altering that balance of power to allow for a little more local autonomy on that particular police commission?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The principle of the control or noncontrol is not alterable for one police commission. The member will note that in the changing of the size of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission from five to seven, it still remained four provincial and three local. The balance was maintained. I would have to say that we would not consider looking at one police commission having a different balance. Personally, I think it makes good sense to look at the larger police forces possibly having larger commissions, because I can accept the position put forward by that region that the workload is too much.

PROTECTION OF OZONE LAYER

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It concerns a pressing and growing concern about the depletion of the earth’s ozone layer and the effect that has on skin cancer and many other things.

We have seen the aerosol industry planning to remove chlorofluorocarbons from aerosol cans in response to the banning of CFCs in packaging in many states and municipalities in the United States. We have seen the fast-food industry beginning to re-look at its packaging, but we have seen no initiatives, no action on the part of this provincial government to deal with the problem. Can the minister explain why?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member will know, we are working at the present time along with the federal government in developing initiatives which will have the result of diminishing the impacts on the ozone layer. There have been some discussions taking place between federal and provincial officials. I will have the opportunity next week to further pursue this matter with some of my colleagues from across the country to determine what further action can be taken that has not already been taken in years gone by to solve this problem.

Some of it is sourced outside of this country; in fact, a considerable amount of it. The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) was telling me, for instance, that within the airshed where his constituency is located, a lot of the ozone problem is originating from the United States. We are prepared to take whatever further action is necessary in Ontario to ensure that we contribute our fair share to solving this problem, as we have in so many other areas.

Mrs. Grier: I am glad to hear that the province is prepared to take some action, because there are some very specific actions that this minister can take, and I would like to have an assurance from him that he will.

In the first place, he could include CFCs in the new air pollution regulation 308. He has not so far indicated he is going to do that. In addition, I am distressed to discover that there is in this province no legislation, no regulation, governing the handling or repair of either domestic or commercial refrigerators and air-conditioners. in their repair, frequently CFCs are released into the atmosphere and there are absolutely no industry standards governing this kind of activity.

These are two concrete suggestions that are entirely within the jurisdiction of the minister. Will he agree to act on them?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member may not be aware, or perhaps she is aware, that we are currently funding industrial 4Rs projects which are designed to recycle the CFCs from industrial uses. By providing this kind of initiative, and it has been going on for some time, we feel we can make an impact.

In addition to that, I want to inform the member that the two CFC plants in Ontario are both closed-loop. There is no opportunity for that pollution to escape if they are closed-loop. It may not please the member to know that because it does not expose the government to excessive criticism, but nevertheless that is exactly the case.

Mr. Wildman: Oh, come off it.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Well, I mean, in baseball you have to be good pitchers and good catchers. Unfortunately, some people are good pitchers but they are not good catchers.

Mr. Wildman: Some people throw sucker balls.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am indicating there are several actions that have been taken in Ontario and we are always prepared to take any further actions that are necessary to ensure that --

Mrs. Grier: Just can’t take criticism.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have already explained to the member what some of those actions are. I know she does not want to hear the good news; at least that is what they always say on this side, that they do not want to hear the good news, they want to simply characterize everything as being doom and gloom. I want to tell the members of the House that there is considerable environmental progress being made in this province and these are initiatives that are designed --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Now that we have been to the ball park, the member for Durham East.

Mr. Cureatz: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

[Applause]

Mr. Cureatz: Let the people at home know that all the Liberals gave the Tory member a round of applause.

Now, my question, Mr. Speaker, if you will listen very closely, is addressed to the minister of the crown who sits between the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and the minister who is Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Elston), and in front of the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine). My question is to that particular minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have figured that out. That is the Minister of the Environment.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr. Cureatz: It just grieves me to no end to think that particular minister, albeit he is doing some adequate work in regard to acid rain, is not doing a heck of a lot about this particular issue, which is that Metro Toronto, in its wisdom, has picked a fourth possible dump site in -- where else? -- my riding of Durham East, in the town of Newcastle; not one, not two, not three, but four.

Do members know where this one is? On the shores of Lake Ontario. Three out of the four, if they can believe it, are on the shore of Lake Ontario.

The interesting thing is, and my question to the minister is, it has been indicated by a former Liberal candidate in the last election, who happens to be running for municipal election, that she has a meeting with the Minister of Environment about the concerns she has and how she is going to stop the dump --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: What is the minister’s response going to be to the former Liberal candidate when she meets with him, and is it going to be any different from the response to me that he is going to have a hands-off --

Mr. Speaker: Order; Minister.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As I have indicated in the past to the member for Durham East, our role in this kind of initiative is a regulatory role. There has been no formal proposal put forward to the Ministry of the Environment or the Environmental Assessment Board for consideration that emanates in either the constituency he represents or any other constituency, as it relates to the Metropolitan Toronto situation. I can tell the member, as I would tell anybody, that when such recommendations or proposals are put forward to us, we give them full consideration as a regulatory agency.

I am not in a position to indicate to Metro Toronto that it should or should not be pursuing sites wherever it deems appropriate. They have had on other occasions sites both within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto and outside. I do, however, understand the concerns that the member has and the fact that he would want to answer to his own constituents about the potential of a Metropo site being in his riding. I can assure him that we look very carefully at any proposals that come forward. I know the member himself will have comments on any specific proposals of a formal nature.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Cureatz: Not wanting to miss the opportunity of a supplementary: the minister and I go back a long way in this House. I have to admit -- albeit I am sure my leader will cringe about this -- he has done an adequate job of expressing concerns about acid rain --

[Applause]

1540

Mr. Cureatz: I will regret this; I can see it.

The minister has not done a bad job of expressing his concerns about acid rain, but the truth of the matter is that, in regard to landfill sites in the Golden Horseshoe, he has taken no leadership. The municipalities of Durham, Metropolitan Toronto, Peel and Halton are spending millions of dollars trying to find a landfill site.

Does the minister not think it would be better if he called in those municipalities and approached them on a co-ordinated effort to resolve the garbage crisis in the Golden Horseshoe; and please, when will he convince his cabinet colleagues that it is time that he did it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not like to intrude upon the municipal responsibilities that are very jealously guarded by people who have served at the municipal level for a number of years, as I did. I think I always resented the intrusion of the provincial government on those kinds of matters that were within the jurisdiction of a municipality.

But I do want to assure the member that in fact I have met, at the request of the people involved, with the chairmen of the regions he mentions, in order to discuss a number of problems that exist, including waste management. I think the member’s suggestion that some of the solutions to waste management lie beyond the borders of any particular municipality may or may not have some merit, but that is something that the municipalities are discussing.

Each individual municipality and regional municipality shares the concerns about attempting to find a place to put its garbage. As members know -- and the member I know supports this -- I have very strongly pushed the option of recycling to reduce considerably the amount of material that would go into any particular landfill site.

I want to assure the member that the chairman of his region and the chairmen of other regions have met with me to bring their concerns to my attention and I think that, in the long run, he will see more co-operation among various municipalities in a co-ordinated area. That probably is the best solution to waste management in the province.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister is aware that the strike at Catulpa-Tamarac in Orillia and Barrie is still continuing, and the concern is that the staff is seriously underpaid at that particular agency.

I have talked to one family therapist who has a master’s degree, has had 18 years in his field and has worked with this agency for 13 years, and he is earning only $31,000. I am advised that a similar person with the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie would earn about $37,000, that the children’s aid would pay about $40,000 and that the Ministry of Community and Social Services would pay about $40,000.

Is there anything the minister can do to try to hold out some possible help to resolve the situation and to end the strike so that these people could get back to their job of helping people?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Catulpa-Tamarac is a good community agency that provides a range of services to the area it serves. I can well understand the concern of the honourable member for the continuation of that service. As the member I am sure knows, we, as a government, are moving increasingly into community services and away from institutional services. One of the difficulties we have is the one that he just brought to our attention. That is the discrepancy in salaries between what is paid at the institutional level and what is paid at the community level.

We have done two things. The first one was in 1986, when we put an additional $5 million into the agency’s salary bill to try to bring up the lowest-paid people. Last year, we put in an additional $10 million for the same purpose. We are working with a number of agencies now to slowly close the gap between those two levels. Unfortunately, it is not going to happen as quickly as some of them would like.

I can only tell the honourable member that it is our intent to close that gap and to see to it that the agencies have sufficient resources to pay fair salaries.

Mr. Owen: The agency has indicated that it feels its hands are tied because it receives about 95 per cent of what it has to work with from the ministry. On the other hand, I appreciate that the ministry really has no direct control over what the particular agencies do with the moneys as they receive them.

We are in a bit of a dilemma. The minister has indicated that something is going to be done over the long term. Can he give us any assurance that there could be some help at this time to assist these people who are out on strike and who are concerned about neglecting the people who require the help and the services of this agency?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Responding to the last comment the honourable member made, I am certainly pleased that the agency has arranged for, along with the consultation with my ministry staff, the most important services to continue, even during this disruption.

But speaking to the first part of his question: as he indicates, we are currently providing about 95 per cent of their budget requirements at the present time. That is a very significant number of dollars. In most cases, it costs us a little bit more to provide services at the community level for the same people for whom we provide at the institutional level and, therefore, there has to be some limit to the resources that we apply.

Many agencies find other resources that they add to that total pot. The responsibility of my ministry and my ministry staff is to work as closely as we possibly can with the agency people to use the resources they have in the ways that they think are most acceptable.

With respect to wage increases, we do not dictate to them how much of their money they can use for that purpose. The only limitation that we put on is that, if they are going to allocate a permanent wage increase, then they must be able to assure us that they are going to have the cash flow to be able to pay for that, not only in one year but also in subsequent years.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. Order. That is a fairly comprehensive answer. New question, the member for Hamilton West.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Allen: To the same minister, to keep him in good exercise. The guidelines governing the direct day care grants announced on April 7 by the Minister of Community and Social Services say that the funds, and I quote, “may only be used to increase existing staff salaries and/or benefits and to increase payments to providers.” Only under some special circumstances is there a secondary purpose allowed in the direct grants to those day care centres.

Is the minister aware that the vast majority of day care workers who were to receive wage increases of up to $5,500 each in April, as a result of his announcement, in fact have not received one penny of the $9 million in direct operating grants that he has been talking about for a year now; and that, as a result, his program is causing tension between workers and board members and more instability in day care centres, as workers move to centres that have applied their grants in the form of higher wages as intended?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member is aware, we indicated to the nonprofit centres that we would flow the money, effective January 1, but we did not actually send out the cheques until, I think, early in April.

We had a clear indication from those nonprofit centres that the money would be used for the two purposes that the member described. As a matter of fact, the feedback that we are getting at the present time is that the average salary increase is in the neighbourhood of about $3,500 -- in some cases, a little lower, in some a little higher -- but the average is about $3,500.

We are still in the process of monitoring that but, as the member will be well aware, April to now is just about two months. There are quite a few agencies and centres in this province, and we obviously have not monitored all of them.

With respect to the for-profit centres, we indicated that the provincial share only would be retroactive to April 1. Those cheques have not started to flow to the centres yet and, therefore, it is entirely possible that those centres would not actually pay out that money, granted that it will be retroactive to April 1, until they get the cheques in their hands.

We hope to have those cheques out before the end of this month. Once again, we have indicated very clearly to the commercial centres that we will be monitoring and we will be checking their books.

Mr. Allen: The average of the wage increase shows no indication as to how many people are getting it or what is being done with it at the other end. A survey that was conducted at the end of May shows that only eight of the regional or municipal centres that were called had passed the money on to their employees, even though they had received it. One actually suggested it would buy equipment. Several others were talking about putting it away in a pay equity reserve fund somewhere for the future.

Only 12 of 30 of the private employers surveyed had passed on any of their grant money to employees. To make matters worse, local offices of the Ministry of Community and Social Services are pressing the minister to make the guidelines even looser, so that there will be even greater discretion in the use of the money at the receiving end.

Will the minister make it clear to the day care centres, please, that they must pass the grant money on to their employees in the manner prescribed in the guidelines?

1550

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member mentioned in the first part of his question, there is some small amount of discretion if in fact the wages that are being paid to employees in a certain centre are at the top end in that particular community. There is that small discretion, but there has to be clear evidence that that is the case.

Other than that, we are standing very firm with our position that that money must be used either for increased wages or reduced parent fees or a combination of both. That is the requirement, and I have no intention of changing that.

Quite frankly, if the wages being paid in a particular centre are not at the top end in that community and they do not use it for that purpose, then there will be a penalty built into a future flow of funds. We have no intention that money will be stuck away for some other purpose.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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

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

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

It is signed by about 25 of the most thought-provoking, thinking citizens of North Bay and Sturgeon Falls.

RESTITUTION TO PROPERTY OWNERS

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

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly;

“The impacts and the impact zones, as outlined in the Ontario Waste Management Corporation’s document, Managing Change, are unrealistically restricted. Therefore, we, the undersigned residents and ratepayers of west Lincoln and surrounding municipalities, demand that the impact zone for full restitution to property owners extend to a five-mile radius, as was done with Ontario Hydro in Bruce county.”

It is signed by 1,300 residents of the riding of Lincoln, and I affix my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Villeneuve: I have two petitions. They both pertain to Sunday shopping. The first one is signed by 151 persons from the Toronto area and it reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, strongly object to Sunday shopping.”

I endorse this petition.

I also have a petition signed by 78 persons, members of the Heritage-York pastoral charge of the United Church of Canada, which reads as follows:

“We hereby request that the provincial government uphold the current policies of Sunday shopping.”

I will not read the many “whereases,” but I will read the conclusions.

“1. Our society needs a common pause day and day of rest. Given the historical rootedness of Sunday as such a day in our Canadian society, it is logical that Sunday continue to be such a day of pause and rest.

“2. We are concerned that extended Sunday shopping will place additional and unfair pressure on retail employees and operators of small businesses, thereby taking away from them any opportunity for a common day of pause from work.

“3. We believe it is a fallacy, generated by the overemphasis on consumerism in our society, to claim that additional Sunday shopping will generate increased economic benefits for society. The human costs of extended Sunday shopping will bring no significant benefits to our society or economy and will only serve further to erode the personal and family values which have historically and traditionally been the foundation of our life together.”

I fully agree with this petition. I have signed it and endorsed it.

Mr. Sterling: I have a petition as well, signed by 349 persons from Bleeker Stereo and TV in Nepean, Ontario. Hans Bleeker happens to be a personal friend of mine and feels very strongly on this issue.

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

“We love our families! Don’t legislate employees to work on Sundays! We don’t need wide-open Sunday shopping!”

I have signed this petition.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. McCague: I have a petition signed by many irate taxpayers in Ontario, which reads as follows:

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

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

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved first reading of Bill 153, An Act to amend the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The purpose of the amendment is to clearly enable the Minister of Natural Resources to transfer pit and quarry licences between established operators. The amendment will also validate those licences which have already changed hands. There is no change in the way the ministry administers the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

The amendment has become necessary because of a recent judicial review in the Supreme Court of Ontario involving a ratepayers group seeking to close a quarry near Orillia. The amendment rectifies the legal ambiguity of the act and is in total conformity with the intent of the legislation as endorsed by the Supreme Court.

PETERBOROUGH CIVIC HOSPITAL ACT

Mr. Adams moved first reading of Bill Pr47, An Act respecting the Peterborough Civic Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 154, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: The purpose of the bill is to extend the time for notice of appeal concerning an assessment from 21 days to 60 days.

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. Sterling: This is an issue on which I will attempt to speak not only for people in the riding of Carleton but also for people from all over eastern Ontario, particularly those represented by government members, because Liberal government members representing Ottawa area ridings seem very reluctant to speak up on behalf of their constituents. I see the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) coming in here and I hope he is going to speak for the many people in his area.

In the time allotted for us to present petitions, I presented a petition this morning for people who had brought forward their views with regard to these pieces of legislation for the city of Nepean. Of course, that area is represented by a Liberal member of government as well. I think one should not be fooled by the fact that this Legislature has only received --

Hon. Mr. Conway: Happy anniversary.

1600

Mr. Sterling: I thank the member. Mr. Speaker, you may not be aware of this, and I break away from my general remarks on Bill 113 to say that this happens to be June 9, 1988. It was 11 years ago today that I was first elected to this august body, at the age of 18.

Mr. Smith: Do you expect us to believe that?

Mr. Sterling: I know the member will believe the rest of my remarks, though perhaps he will not believe that. Was the member for Windsor-Riverside elected in 1977 for the first time?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Yes.

Mr. Sterling: And the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) as well. There were a number of others. Unfortunately, a lot of them have fallen by the wayside.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Maybe they have moved back into the mainstream of Ontario’s life.

Mr. Sterling: That is right.

In spite of my partisan view on a number of issues, over the last 11 years there have been probably two issues which I feel have been dealt with by governments in a very ham-handed, ill-conceived manner.

I believe many of the politicians here, who can attribute their success as members of this Legislative Assembly to the handling by the former government of Bill 30, which was the extension of separate school funding.

I think perhaps the second one in those past 11 years in terms of how badly an issue has been handled by government relates to the legislation we are talking about today. I do not know if the members remember, but if they go back to November 1987, and even prior to that, to the Magder case, when the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was trying to uphold the present law that we have controlling Sunday shopping, the Retail Business Holidays Act, in his arguments in front of the Court of Appeal -- and it was again appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada -- the Attorney General argued basically for the positions that the opposition parties are putting forward.

It is hard to read his words and his factums in front of those courts and not wonder how on earth a government has gone 180 degrees from where it was in terms of trying to maintain a day of rest, a common pause day for people in Ontario.

I think it is worth while reading into the record what the Attorney General said in his factum to the Court of Appeal: “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, friends and community events. A quality common day of recreation was needed for as many of Ontario citizens as was possible.”

I asked the Attorney General this week a question in the Legislature in relation to that statement. I asked him directly: “Do you believe that by delegating the authority to 843 municipalities, or whatever number of municipalities there are in the province, there are going to be more stores open or less stores open? Are there going to be more retail workers working on Sunday or fewer retail workers on Sunday?”

The Attorney General, with a straight face, said to me he thought there were going to be fewer people working on Sundays. I do not believe anybody looking at this legislation who has any idea of how society works, of the pushes and pulls on municipal councils which take place, can draw that conclusion, can believe that. Can anybody believe that municipal councils, once this has been delegated to them, are going to close down stores that are now open?

Mr. Faubert: We believe.

Mr. Sterling: Do you believe that?

Mr. Faubert: Yes.

Mr. Sterling: Do you really believe that’? You believe the Olympics are going to Greece in 1996. I believe they are going to Toronto too.

At any rate, there can be no doubt that by the delegation of this authority to the municipalities to make up their minds, some municipalities will go for it. They will go for it in order to attract shopping centres to their municipalities. They will say to those shopping centres, so that they will not go into the bigger, more metropolitan areas: “Come on out here into our semi-urban, rural municipality. We are looking for assessment, but what we will do for you, Mr. Shopping Centre Owner, is let you open on Sundays and you can draw those people out of the larger metropolitan areas to our area and you will get more business for it.”

That is what is going to happen. We originally thought that perhaps the drive for Sunday shopping would be found in the larger metropolitan areas, but from the way this legislation has been drawn, the consensus now is that the areas outside the larger metropolitan areas will be the first to break. Municipalities which are not now populated by a lot of people but are on the edge of large populations will go for wide-open Sunday shopping.

Of course, we know what happens when that breaks open. The shopping centre owners and the retail merchants who lose the business to people who go outside will come to their municipal council and say: “Look, we have been paying taxes to you for a long period of time. We want equal treatment.” Then it will be done and there will be more and more stores opening as time goes on.

Experience shows and I am told -- I have had so much written material on this that I cannot source the document right here in front of me -- that people will go as far as 100 miles to shop at a particular place. Therefore, the whole idea of saying one is in favour of a common pause day for the people of Ontario is really subject to a lot of questions when one knows that people will travel those kinds of distances to shop at a particular time.

Quite frankly, I have difficulty in drawing the same conclusions as the Attorney General does, after this legislation passes, since there are at least 100, 200 or 300 other bodies which will have the right to make their own laws in this regard. I have a difficult time coming to the conclusion that even with the overwhelming desire of most of the people of Ontario to be against this initiative, some of those municipalities will not break under the pressure.

I want also to draw attention to how that would happen in a municipal council. What establishes the value of a commercial piece of property now is usually the zoning. If a person wants to change the use of that, if he wants to change it from residential to commercial, from residential to industrial or whatever, he has to go through a process whereby he has the zoning changed. When one goes through that process, the community has to be notified of the change, so that everybody, I believe it is within 400 feet of the particular piece of property, receives a notification in the mail that there is going to be a general meeting.

1610

A planner usually comes down from the municipality and explains what is being proposed. The community then has a chance to react. It has a chance of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, but not under Bill 113. Under Bill 113, significant pressure can be brought to council to go ahead with, in effect, rezoning land, if you want to call the changing of use from six days to seven days a rezoning.

It is really a change of use of land. But under Bill 113, all that has to happen is for a member of council to put up his hand and say: “Mr. Mayor, I have a resolution or a motion. I want to allow wide-open Sunday shopping in our municipality.” If the bylaw goes through three readings, that is it. There is no requirement that the public be consulted and no requirement that anybody know about it. It can be done just as quickly as that.

That would be even more important when dealing with a very small part of a municipality. If the municipal council decides singlehandedly to change one portion of the municipality where it could affect the family life or community life of an area, because of increased volume of traffic on Sundays going to a shopping centre, that area of the municipality would have no prior notice that the change in use, of a large shopping centre, for example, was going to take place on Sundays. It could be done like that without the municipality having to tell the local community there was going to be a change.

I really have difficulty coming to any other conclusion than the fact that this bill, Bill 113, is going to lead to more retail stores opening on Sunday and is going to lead to more retail employees working on Sunday. I think anybody who has looked at the legislation and has any experience will come to that conclusion.

The other statement I find just totally contradictory to what the government is doing today, and it was put forward by the Attorney General in this case, relates to the employees.

I will read that statement as well. This again comes from the factum to the Court of Appeal: “Employees in the retail sector were viewed as being in need of a statutorily mandated day of rest. Without such a regulation prohibiting Sunday openings, the vigorous competition for market share would force many retailers to open.” That is what I talked about a few moments ago. “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, particularly in large establishments where employee resistance to management decisions to open would be met simply by replacing the resisting employee.’”

The context in which the words are put forward by the Attorney General is interesting. What he is saying is that regardless of the law -- and this government is going to argue that Bill 114 answers all the concerns of employees -- some 250,000 -- I believe that is approximately the number of people who are working in the retail sector -- would not be able to protect themselves from subtle pressures -- those are his words -- that would be applied to them to come to work on Sunday, regardless of whether they wanted or did not want to come to work.

We have an Attorney General posturing that he wants to have as many people with this common pause day as possible. We have an Attorney General posturing that it does not matter that we have a law trying to protect these workers. The practical fact is that under the existing circumstances in Ontario, where about one fifth or 20 per cent of them are unionized, the other 80 per cent really do not have anybody to carry the ball for them if a retailer steps over the line.

Also, the fact of the matter is that many of these businesses are small businesses and there is a tremendous loyalty between the employee and the employer. Therefore, if the employer is shoved into or forced to open on Sundays, the employees will go along regardless of the fact that they would much prefer to stay at home with their families that day.

We have a situation where anybody who has one shred of common sense knows there are going to be more stores open. We have a situation where we are going to have a weak position for employees to put forward to protect themselves against working on this day. What we have is a regression from the existing state of the law because, in spite of the remarks about the problems with the definition of what is and what is not a tourist area, quite frankly, the retail trade would prefer to sit down with the members of the Legislative Assembly and try to fix what is broken, rather than hand it off and walk away from the responsibility, as this provincial government is choosing to do.

In eastern Ontario, I have to tell members, there is very little support for this legislation.

Mr. Chiarelli: Do you want to bet?

Mr. Sterling: Yes, I would like to bet.

Mr. Chiarelli: What does the mayor say? What does the Ottawa Citizen say?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sterling: Look, there is a bias in terms of newspapers. Newspapers would love --

Mr. Chiarelli: What about the mayor of Ottawa?

Mr. Sterling: The mayor of Ottawa can have his opinion. I do not care. What does the Liberal deputy mayor, Mac Harb, say about it? Is Mac Harb for it?

Mr. Chiarelli: He likes what we are doing.

Mr. Sterling: Yes, he sure does, eh? That is not what he told me. He told me he was against this.

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

Mr. Sterling: He met with the Solicitor General and told her that too, as did the Liberal mayor from Cornwall. He met with the Solicitor General and told her that he did not like it. Did he not tell her that?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Maybe once I explained it to them, they had time to think about it.

Mr. Sterling: I talked to them after the minister talked to them.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. No interjections and the member shall address his remarks through the chair. Thank you.

Mr. Sterling: Of course, I was addressing you, Mr. Speaker, until I was interrupted by my colleague the member for Ottawa West, who is obviously in favour of wide-open Sunday shopping. I hope he does take that position because I would love to run in the next election or have our candidate run. Maybe I will switch to Ottawa West and run against the member for Ottawa West next time, because that is where I was born and raised, actually, or very close to there.

Mr. Chiarelli: That is because you will lose your own riding. Roly is waiting for you.

Mr. Sterling: Roly is waiting for me. Oh, boy, am I frightened.

Mr. Faubert: You had better look at the poll results before you make that decision.

The Deputy Speaker: May I again remind the member to address his remarks through the Speaker, please?

Mr. Sterling: Oh, yes. I am sorry. Anybody in our party who went through that last election will be there the next time and in spades.

Mr. Hampton: There are a lot of instant experts over there.

1620

Mr. Sterling: Well, we have a few of them. Yes, we have a few.

Mr. Hampton: They won one election and they’re instantly experts.

Mr. Sterling: What did John Diefenbaker call them? Johnny One-Timers. Was that not what he called them?

At any rate, I would like to get back to what eastern Ontario is telling me at least, and what the business community is telling me. There was a very large meeting held by one section of CAOSS in the Ottawa area; CAOSS stands for Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping. All the Ottawa MPPs were asked, including you, I believe, Mr. Speaker. It is kind of ironic that only one MPP showed up, and that happened to be the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve).

Mr. Chiarelli: Where were you?

Mr. Sterling: Unfortunately, I was out of the country and indicated to the chair that I was out of the country and was unable to be there. I do not believe there was anybody else who indicated they were unfortunately detained and could not be at that particular meeting.

I believe there were over 1,500 people at that meeting who were interested in that issue, all expressing that they wanted to maintain or fix up the Retail Business Holidays Act. I have not had one telephone call or one letter in favour of what the government is doing. I think it partly relates to the fact that the government is out of sync with what the people of Ontario really want.

I think it is a sickness that is coming over the present administration in terms of trying to be trendy and upbeat, trying to say it is part of that yuppie image the Premier tries to put forward, trying to say that Sunday shopping is inevitable, that we cannot stop that kind of thing from happening, that it wants to be seen at the forefront of this kind of initiative, and, therefore, “Let’s get on the bandwagon; let’s be out and there and put it forward.”

I do not believe there is a quorum here, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1622

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): A quorum now being present, would the member for Carleton wish to proceed?

Mr. Sterling: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am glad to see you are in the chair to listen to a few of my remarks, although I know you would be following this debate with interest whether you were in the chair or not.

I was speaking about the feeling of eastern Ontario and some of the people I represent in eastern Ontario.

Interjection.

Mr. Sterling: The Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade has expressed its concern about this piece of legislation, and you would think, Madam Speaker, that perhaps the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) would be interested in hearing what it has to say. He asks if I have been listening. I only listen to communications I receive or read, so I will read into the record what the Ottawa Board of Trade has to say.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: That was before Gilles spoke to the amendment.

Mr. Sterling: Oh, you think they are in favour of it.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: Oh, I see. The member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin) has changed them all around. He has changed the retailers and the business community around. They are in favour.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: Were these the ones who were at the same Liberal fund-raiser? Is that the one you are talking about?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: These were at the chamber of commerce --

Mr. Sterling: I see; OK.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I request all members to remember that remarks should be directed through the chair. Thank you.

Mr. Sterling: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) would like to speak, I guess, and she keeps interrupting.

Mr. Ruprecht: Keep your comments on a nonpartisan basis, please.

Mr. Sterling: I thought this was a partisan issue.

Mr. Neumann: Rise above it. You can do it.

Mr. Sterling: Timothy Whitehead, acting chairman of the Ottawa Board of Trade stated recently: “The board of directors of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade wish it to be known that we, like our counterparts in the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and many other chambers throughout the province of Ontario, stand firm in our belief that it is the responsibility of our provincial politicians to resolve the controversial issue of Sunday shopping. To delegate this responsibility to our municipal government is totally inappropriate” --

Mr. Neumann: We haven’t delegated it.

Mr. Sterling: I am sorry. I thought I had read Bill 113, and I thought it was delegating authority to them to make the rules.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Everything is closed.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: “To delegate this responsibility to our municipal government is totally inappropriate; for municipalities act unilaterally in their own interest, without regard for neighbouring municipalities.

“As cited in our annual statement of 1987, this delegation will result in a patchwork of differing local laws and result in unfairness to many merchants.”

I thought that was pretty good. I thought it was against this particular step, and the way I read it is that the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade does not like this. Now, if it has changed its policy, it sure has not let me know. It has not written me subsequent to this particular document, and I would assume that being the responsible organization the Ottawa Board of Trade is, it would get hold of me and let me know it had changed its policy with regard to this issue, if that were the case.

I talked to several members of the board of trade. In fact, I talked to all but one of the delegations that went to see the Solicitor General and they were not very satisfied with that meeting, as far as I could tell.

Mr. Whitehead concluded on behalf of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade: “I ask that the provincial government look again at this very important issue, recognize the error in their judgement and act quickly to return to themselves the responsibility of determining whether Ontario residents will or will not have Sunday shopping.”

It is as clear as could be. It is as clear as a bell. It is against what the government is doing. This is also true of a number of the local governments that are in the area. This is from the city of Kanata which I represent:

“The staff be directed to advise the provincial government that the city of Kanata opposes Sunday shopping and the transferring to the municipalities the provincial authority to regulate closing of retail businesses under the Retail Business Holidays Act.”

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Does Ottawa think Bytown should be closed?

Mr. Sterling: Pardon?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Does Ottawa think Bytown should be closed?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: Sorry, I couldn’t hear the Solicitor General.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member for Carleton to complete his speech.

1630

Mr. Sterling: That may take a few moments, Madam Speaker; it is an important issue. If we want to open areas in the city of Ottawa and whatever, let’s make the rules here. Let’s make them here so that it does not matter whether you are in Ottawa, Nepean, Gloucester, Cumberland, Rideau, Osgoode, Goulbourn or Kanata. Those are all of the municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton area and I represent five of them. I probably represent more municipalities in the Ottawa area than any other member, even though they are all government members. I represent more municipal governments than the member for Ottawa West. He only represents two aldermen, I think. I represent 50 different politicians, and of the 50, none has come to me and said: “Norm, we want to regulate this area. We want to make up the rules.”

Mr. Chiarelli: Three hundred votes; you won’t represent any of them.

Mr. Sterling: I represent 75,000 people, as I have for the last 11 years, as you know, Madam Speaker. The member for Ottawa West, who has represented probably about 65,000 people for eight months and one election, has made comments with regard to how I represent 300 or 500 people or whatever.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: How many of your municipal politicians bought turkeys?

Mr. Sterling: All of them.

I have read the city of Kanata’s resolution. I would also like to read the township of Goulbourn’s. It is a growing municipality, and as a municipality would be subject to the kind of pressures I mentioned with regard to other municipalities outside the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton allowing Sunday shopping, whereas the township of Goulbourn would be controlled by regional control. In other words, the township of Goulbourn would be subject to what the region said, whereas if you jumped over the border to Beckwith township, which is in the county of Lanark, that municipal council could make its own rules.

Therefore, it is going to be subject to the kind of pressure I was talking about, a shopping centre right on the edge of Beckwith where the municipal council, wanting that kind of thing, might decide -- I do not know whether it will decide -- that it will allow Sunday shopping to occur right in that corner of the municipality, out in the middle of a field somewhere so it will not bother its residents. What it will mean is that retail workers will be required to staff those stores on Sundays. That is what is going to happen here.

Anyway, the township of Goulbourn wished to go on record to join the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping and state that it objects to the decision of the provincial government to shift Sunday shopping legislation from the province to the municipalities.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Since all those regions are supporting you, you really -- with all that support.

Mr. Neumann: It’s only an option.

Miss Nicholas: They don’t have to take the option.

Mr. Sterling: They are not following the thrust of my speech. I think that is a tragedy. I wish they would listen more closely.

Mr. Smith: You’re giving it a good shot, Norman.

Mr. Sterling: I know.

I would also like to bring forward to the attention of the Legislature what AMO feels about this particular legislation. I am reading from an editorial of February of this year: “In a nearly unanimous vote, three dissenting, the board of directors of AMO” -- that is the Association of Municipalities of Ontario -- ”reaffirmed the municipal position on Sunday shopping. The board of directors” --

Hon. Mrs. Smith: They took it before we read the bill, and they said they didn’t want to know what we were putting in the bill because they weren’t interested in changing their position.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: No, Joan, the principle was that they didn’t want you to pass the buck.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would remind all members again that the member for Carleton has the floor and that I think we should listen intently to what he has to say. There will be time for all members to enter into the debate in the last 10 minutes.

Mr. Neumann: It’s tough listening.

Miss Nicholas: It’s just so stimulating.

Mr. Sterling: Well, it seems to be stimulating; it sure is shaking the cages here a little bit.

Anyway, the Solicitor General has interjected into the debate this afternoon that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario took this position before the legislation came down.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Before it was written.

Mr. Sterling: Well, I agree; they did. They took it before it was written, but after they had heard about it. That was what the minister’s planning was all about. She said she was going to do this thing and she had not even figured out how the heck she was going to do it. That is part of the minister’s problem. She backed into this thing. She fell into it. The Attorney General said at one point in time --

Mr. Chiarelli: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I note that there probably is not a quorum in the House and I also want to note that there is not one member from the third party in the House listening to the member for Carleton. In view of that, I would like to have a quorum call.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1637

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. Would the member for Carleton please continue.

Mr. Sterling: I am just about through my introductory remarks and into the speech.

The Solicitor General was saying, before I was so rudely interrupted, that AMO had made its decision on the issue prior to the legislation being put forward. That is the second time I have heard that charge this afternoon with regard to positions other bodies had taken, that other parties had taken positions prior to the bills being introduced. That is true, but we have not heard --

Ms. Poole: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I just want to correct Hansard. There is now one other Conservative member in the House.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order, only an observation.

Mr. Sterling: Well, counting myself, that is about 12 per cent of our caucus, and I do not see 12 per cent of the Liberal caucus here this afternoon. I put that forward because I do not think most of them can count, so I can probably get away with it.

Mr. Breaugh: It seems to have worked.

Mr. Sterling: It seems to have worked.

At any rate, our members have to man committees, and other members have to be on various committees.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario -- I am trying to get its position out and I am having a great deal of difficulty because of these interruptions -- has resolved “that the Premier and the executive council of Ontario” -- that is, the cabinet – “be advised that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario maintains its position that municipalities should not be charged with the responsibility of regulating retail store openings on Sundays and holidays.”

They placed that clearly in February. This legislation, Bill 113 and Bill 114, does not change one iota the principle that they do not want the provincial government passing the buck down to the municipal level to decide on this issue.

1640

It further states: “It is abundantly clear that retail shopping patterns are not dictated by municipal boundaries either at the local or regional level. By no stretch of the imagination can the regulation of store hours on a Sunday or a holiday be viewed as a matter which properly comes within the influence of a local council.”

Now that is the organization that knows how municipal councils work. They know from where their decisions come, and they know what is going to happen when Bill 113 and Bill 114 go into effect. They know that some municipalities are going to break ranks and create more Sunday shopping in this province, thereby requiring more of our people to work on those particular days.

I want to also bring forward the view of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, which wrote to me in January 1988. They said at that time, and they have not informed me that they have changed any of it.

Mr. Chiarelli: They now support the bill; you’re out of date.

Miss Nicholas: They’ve switched.

Mr. Sterling: I keep hearing the Liberals saying that everybody has changed their position on this, and it is funny that people who are as responsible as I believe the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers are, as a group -- it represents 1,500 independent grocers in this province -- I could tell you that the ones who live in my area certainly have not switched their position on it, because they have forwarded me petitions against this particular legislation.

They say in their letter to me: “Modern lifestyles with husband and wife at work and children either in day care or at school have already reduced the opportunities for the family unit to be together. Of course, part of the appeal of Sunday shopping among certain segments of our population stems from the very fact that many families, both husband and wife, are now working. Therein lies the dilemma. If asked, many people will say that they welcome the opportunity to shop on Sunday. At the same time, those same people will also indicate that they would be most upset if they were called to work on Sunday.”

As provincial politicians --

Interjection.

Mr. Sterling: I hear one of the members over here saying, “So would I.” Listen, I tell him this, I will be here on Sunday and my party will be here on Sunday if those members want to sit on Sunday. We will be here on Sunday. We will have as many as the Liberals and more than them on Sunday on a proportional basis.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order. Would the member for Carleton take his seat for a moment, please, while all members regain their composure? I would ask that all members not interject. The member for Carleton is trying valiantly to complete his speech. Would you please allow him to do so?

Mr. Sterling: Thank you for your understanding, Madam Speaker.

I guess I get a little angry when people who are as privileged as we are, having a place like the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to work in from day to day, when bureaucrats, civil servants, have the opportunity to work in the kind of environment that they do and work regular business hours; they do not work Saturdays. Mind you, I work on some Saturdays and I work on some Sundays, but our civil service, in general, does not work on Saturdays and Sundays, but we have the option, at least. When we are politicians, we can say no to work on Sundays if we so choose.

Those people over there in this government are saying, “It’s OK for us, but it ain’t OK for them.” That is what they are saying. They are saying, “Retail workers, we won’t protect you; but we’re fat cats, we’ll be OK.”

Madam Speaker, you know of the resolution my party put forward whereby we are quite willing, if this government feels it is necessary to put Ontario to work on Sundays, to go to work on Sundays as well, Let’s make the same rules for everybody.

Mr. Breaugh: Will there be as many here then as there are this afternoon? That is the question.

Mr. Sterling: I think there would be more here on Sunday.

This is a quote from the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers: “As provincial politicians, we believe that it is your responsibility to look beyond the perceived immediate desires of certain members of the population and ensure that the legislative changes are in the interests of all Ontarians, not just of this generation but of generations to come.

That is one thing this government is not considering in what it is doing. It is delegating the authority down, it is passing the buck, but it is not really concerned about what is going to happen 10, 15, or 20 years from now. Once it delegates it down, it will never bring it back up. Once Sunday shopping is established in this province, in 10, 20, then in 50 and in 100 municipalities, it is all over. You cannot turn back that kind of change in our society once it is introduced.

That is what is happening here under Bill 113 and Bill 114. We are taking another yuppie step towards the Premier’s Ontario of tomorrow. That is what is happening. If the government lacks the resolve and foresight to stand firm in favour of Sunday-closing laws and passes the issue down to the municipalities, there will be no turning back the clock. That is what is happening here. We will never be able to turn it back.

The competitive nature of a free enterprise society, which we desire to foster, will in the long run guarantee that all commercial establishments must open on Sunday. It will not just be a question of retail stores being open and therefore retail employees working; all of those support services necessary to supply those stores will also be working. In no time, a vast number of people in this province will find that their work schedule calls for them to be at work on Sunday, and the one common day of rest for the majority of our citizens will be lost, and it will be lost forever.

If I could return to my speech: There are many other kinds of groups which are opposed to this. As I stated before, in my 11 years in this Legislature representing, first, the good people of Carleton-Grenville and now the people of Carleton, I have never seen such a coalition, such a number of groups gather around an issue. On this particular issue, we have church leaders, small-business people, large-business people, labour unions and labour not represented by unions, all against this legislation.

They have put together a group called the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping, which has attracted over 300,000 members across this province who have given of their time and their money to fight this government on this issue.

1650

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Did Cam say they were out shopping? They were out shopping, these church groups and all that?

Mr. Sterling: I do not know if any of this CAOSS group was out shopping. They may have been out sunning last Sunday, but I do not know if they were out shopping last Sunday or not. I do not know what relevance the Solicitor General sees to that issue. I think what is of relevance is the fact that --

Mr. Neumann: You were the guys who opened racetracks on Sundays. You can go bet on the horses on Sunday, but you can’t buy a shirt.

Mr. Sterling: We are getting interjections again from the member for Brantford. I hope he is standing up in his community and shouting out. I hope the member for Brantford is saying to the people of Brantford that this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I hope he runs on it in the next election, because he was chicken to run on it this last election.

Where was he on it in this election? Where was he on September 10 on Sunday shopping? I did not hear the member for Nepean (Mr. Daigeler) say anything about Sunday shopping; that his government was going to pass the buck down. I did not hear the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) say he was going to pass the buck down. I did not hear the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) say he was going to pass the buck down. I dare them to say it the next time. Where were they on September 10? This was a hidden agenda of those people.

Mr. Neumann: You’re just not honest enough to accept that your party opened up Sundays.

Mr. Sterling: Our party put forward the Retail Business Holidays Act in the mid-1970s and our party continues to remain committed to the Retail Business Holidays Act, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada recently. We would like to sit down with the business community. We would like to sit down with the other people who are interested in this issue and try to fix up the act, but what we are not for is passing the buck, passing what we considered our responsibility in the past, down.

f we decide, as a legislative body, that we want open Sunday shopping, let’s have a vote on it and do it, if that is what they want.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Do you?

Mr. Sterling: Well, that is what the Solicitor General wants. But she wants to put it in the back door. We do not want it; but we want to vote on it. We want to vote on it in this Legislature.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: The Solicitor General keeps interrupting. I am sorry, Madam Speaker.

CAOSS represents 300,000 citizens of Ontario. I will bet you that they represent a lot more children in Ontario than 300,000. These people, in spite of the “progressivity, yuppieness, trendiness” of this issue, which the Premier is trying to paint himself into, trying to curry the favour of the large newspapers here in Toronto, because they are going to get more business out of this because they are going to be advertising Sunday sales -- and there is a vested interest in some of our newspapers in this kind of a thing going ahead -- I believe the mainstream of Ontario feels that we can resist this if we get together and if we do it in a responsible manner.

How is this local option going to benefit our municipalities? I do not think it is really going to benefit them in any way.

I want to mention a couple of matters in that regard. For instance, municipal councils are going to be continually lobbied by various businesses in the area that they want more of a piece of the action, and in order to get a larger market share, which every good retailer is trying to establish in his own business, a method of doing that is opening an extra day but not allowing everybody in the municipality to open an extra day.

We have seen Paul Magder take advantage of that under the existing laws in here. The Attorney General has taken the law into his own hands and said he will not prosecute Paul Magder and the rest of the people who want to flout the existing law, even though it was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada: The most disgusting display of the rule of law that I have seen by any Attorney General over my last 11 years in this Legislature.

The Attorney General decided unilaterally, on his own, that he would not pay any attention to the existing law. He let retailers open on the Sunday after Christmas, Boxing Day, without regard to the existing law, which is totally contrary to the rule of law. The Attorney General has no right to change the law unilaterally. It should come back to the Legislature of Ontario if he wants to change it.

That is the yuppie kind of government we have here. We have an Attorney General who is willing to make the law without coming here to the Legislature to have a decision made on this. Then when they got in the room and could not decide on what to do, what they tried to do is pass the buck to the municipalities. That is what Bill 113 and Bill 114 are all about.

I want to talk briefly about municipal councils and how they are going to be affected by this bill. You are going to have the Paul Magders and the people who want to extend their market share coming in to see local councils. They are going to say: “You don’t have to declare the whole municipality open on Sunday. Just declare my corner open and let me open on Sunday. It won’t bother the rest of the people.” That is what is going to happen and councils are going to be lobbied. They are going to be bombarded. They are going to be taking up a lot of their valuable time dealing with the Sunday shopping issue, instead of this particular Legislature fulfilling its responsibility and making rules here that can be applied by the municipalities.

As I mentioned before, the rules with regard to this whole matter can be changed by the municipal council. I believe that under one section of this bill, which is a bit of a joke, it says that the fine can be up to $50,000, but it also says that the municipalities can drop that fine to a buck if they want to. They can lower the fine to one dollar.

This law not only tries to get around it and pass the buck, but also tries to give the municipalities all the tools to weasel out of the issue that possibly can be given. They do not say, “The fine is going to be this amount,” or whatever. They say it can be $50,000 or it can be one dollar. So they are going to allow people, in effect, to flout the law in municipalities, even if they do not make a formal decision to go for Sunday shopping.

We would not do that in this party. We would create the framework and the rules that would basically maintain a common pause day for people in our province.

We have heard from time to time about the situation in Alberta and Saskatchewan with Sunday shopping there. I have to say that a lot of people in Saskatchewan and Alberta, including some of the politicians, are not sure that they did the right thing out there. Experience has shown out in that particular area that the large shopping centres are drawing trade from local retailers as far as 100 miles away. You can have what one municipality in eastern Ontario does affecting all the municipalities in eastern Ontario because of the kind of draw that it can have from various areas.

1700

As I mentioned before, there is no mechanism in Bill 113 to promote or to cause a public debate on any change with regard to Sunday shopping. A municipal council could, unintentionally, pass a law with regard to Sunday shopping, opening up considerable portions or all of the municipality, without really letting the public know what is going on. That could happen. That is why we have the rules in our planning legislation, so that when the municipal council changes the zoning laws, it has to let the people know that the rules around those are changing. Bill 113 says nothing about that. It may be just as important -- it may be more important -- than some of the zoning changes that go through. I do not see what advantages there are for any municipal council with regard to this particular bill.

Madam Speaker -- sorry, Mr. Speaker, you have been changing on me back and forth, because I have gone on at some length.

I intend not to address the problems with regard to Bill 114, which is the companion piece of legislation, but it is somewhat relevant in terms of the debate on this particular bill. Bill 113 really allows the store door to open across Ontario, and Bill 114 attempts to keep as few employees as possible from crossing the threshold of that doorway. At least, that is what the government alleges.

Quite frankly, I do not believe that Bill 114 does very much for the workers of Ontario in terms of protecting their right not to go to work on Sunday, partially because I was convinced by the remarks that the Attorney General brought forward to the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Magder case when he said it did not matter what the rules were, the “subtle pressures,” which were his words, would take over, and in fact employees who refuse to come to work on Sundays would be dismissed. That is what is going to happen under Bill 114.

Neither Bill 113 nor Bill 114 prevents the problems that a retailer who is forced to stay open faces in a shopping centre. The bill pretends to state that a retailer does not need to open. It does not say anything about common expenses, which a retailer would have to pay in a shopping centre, regardless of whether he was open or not. It does not say anything about the common expenses that a retailer would have to pay to advertise in the local paper for a Sunday sale that he was not involved in. All of these matters are not dealt with in Bill 113 or Bill 114.

How can a small retailer stay closed on Sunday if in fact the shopping centre decides to open? How can he afford to stay closed if he is required, every so often -- probably every five years, as is the case in most commercial retail leases -- to renegotiate his lease with the landlord? How is he expected to have the landlord negotiate in good faith with him if in fact he is obstreperous and decides that he is going to stand by his principles and not open on Sunday?

It is not possible to deal with those kinds of things in legislation. That is why we need strong provincial law which will make the rules and which can be enforced.

One of the arguments that the Solicitor General and the Attorney General have put forward on a number of occasions is that it is impossible for us to enforce the act. It is impossible for us to have an act which is enforceable. We cannot fix it up. The Retail Business Holidays Act is unenforceable. It is a very difficult situation.

Does not the same argument hold true for a municipality? Does it not hold much more true for a municipality because it has much less in the way of enforcement mechanisms to put such a law in place? They do not have the Ontario Provincial Police to rely on. A lot of townships in our province do not have large police forces to enforce such a law. They do not have the planning staff. They do not have the legislative staff to draft rules which can be maintained in courts and can be enforced in courts.

What we have here is a government which is saying, “We are going to delegate to the municipalities and, really, we probably don’t think they can do it.” We are going to have more Paul Magders across this province who are going to break municipal bylaws that are made surrounding these laws --

Hon. Mrs. Smith: No, the injunction will stop that.

Mr. Sterling: Oh sure, sure, sure. Wait and see. The legal attacks on the laws which are made by municipalities across this province will fill our courts, and the laws that they will make will be much less enforceable than the existing law which has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I have mentioned here that Bill 114 has a tremendous lack of substance to protect workers in our situation. The group that has come together under CAOSS, labour --

Hon. Mrs. Smith: They are in chaos, that’s for sure.

Mr. Sterling: The Solicitor General says those groups are in chaos. When she talks about the church leaders of the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Lutheran Church, if she wants to talk about the union leadership, if she wants to talk about the business leadership not knowing what they are doing --

Hon. Mrs. Smith: They picked a funny name.

The Deputy Speaker: Order please. Order.

Mr. Sterling: I feel very strongly that a group of individuals got together and put out their time voluntarily. These are people who are busy church, union and business leaders. They are busy, busy people. They have a lot of responsibility. When the executive comes together -- I think there are 20 or 24 of them on the executive -- and put forward their time, I think they know what they are doing. I think they believe in what they are doing and I think they are a credible group.

I am chagrined to hear the Solicitor General take them on in the manner she does, because I do not think that that is fair to them. I think they are a good group. She and the Premier have failed to respond to them in a legitimate fashion. Not only has the Premier been less than straightforward in dealing with this issue during the last election, at least he could deal with the people of the province who have put themselves into a group, under CAOSS, and said: “Let’s put our voices together and let’s try to get to this Premier. Let’s try to work with him in a co-operative manner so that we can have this mistake reversed.”

1710

You have not said anything to me about it, Mr. Speaker, but I know some of your colleagues have some concerns about this legislation, and rightly so. I only hope they will have the fortitude -- and we have not seen it from very many members of the Liberal back bench -- to step out and start talking in a tougher tone and show that there is some independence in that back bench, because we have not seen it. We have not seen it in committees; we have not seen it in this Legislature, save and except for the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson), who from time to time does stand up as a man of his own thoughts and his own integrity and will stand up for an issue in which he believes.

I think it is to the credit of a political party to have a number of people who do that. I would like to see that on this particular issue but I really do not hold much hope for that, in that the Premier seems to have all his 93 people in line. They seem to be willing to march to the tune, whatever that tune might be.

I hope they will listen when this bill is referred to committee and many citizens from around Ontario come to the committee. I hope the Liberal back-benchers listen for a change, because they have been yapping a lot this afternoon while I have talked on this particular bill, and I think some of them are convincing themselves that what the government has done here is good. They have not looked to the long-term effects; they have not considered the idea that perhaps we should take a second look at the existing legislation, try to fix it up to have a provincial law whereby as many Ontarians as possible can enjoy a common day of pause so they can get together with their families.

I firmly believe, and I know my caucus believes, this legislation is going to lead to a more commercial Ontario, an Ontario which does not need an extra day of commercialism. We do not need it. We have got six days now. I would prefer five days if we could do it, but I know that is not practical. I know where we are now in Ontario. We are at six days, maybe six days and a quarter, and what is going to happen is that in five years we are going to be at six days and a half; in 10 years, we will be at six and three quarters; and in 20 years, it is going to be seven days a week when we are running full tilt.

And what have we gained? We have gained nothing. It is all because this government backed into this issue. It did not know what it was doing, and it is too bad that the government does not have the intestinal fortitude to come forward and say: “We were wrong. Let’s take another look at it.” I am certain my caucus would give the government its full support in terms of doing that.

I think my children and my grandchildren -- if I go on much longer, it might happen before I finish my speech -- would enjoy an Ontario where they would be guaranteed to some degree at least one day of the week when they could get together.

This does not seem to be the only issue on which this government has dealt with the family in this manner. I think it really does call into question the whole philosophical underpinning of the Liberal Party in terms of what priorities it has in policymaking. What priorities does it have when it makes policy, be it Sunday shopping, the spouse-in-the-house rule or whatever it is? What policy does it have dealing with children and children’s welfare, dealing with the Attorney General in terms of his family law, with the enforcement of family law? What are its priorities in all those matters?

I have had an increasing number of constituents come to me over the past year who have been concerned with the fact that when this government makes policy, the family unit seems to be very low in its priority in terms of what it is doing.

We all have to keep priorities in line when we make our particular policies, and sometimes those priorities do not add up to the same policy, but I just feel that the maintenance of the family unit is getting lower and lower on this agenda, in order for us to have the Peterson dream of a yuppie Ontario.

Mr. Neumann: I listened with great interest to the honourable member’s speech, and I think the honourable member realizes that the bill before the House does maintain a provincial framework and it maintains the enforcement of that framework at the provincial level.

I think he realizes that after the announcement that was made in December on the intention to introduce legislation, the government listened to the concerns of the people and incorporated many of those concerns in this legislation and that this legislation does not require municipalities to do anything; rather, it presents them with a clearer and more honest and more direct option at the local level than the loophole created by the previous government, which the member represents, called the tourism option.

I think the member realizes that the bill is a straightforward bill, that it closes a lot of the loopholes, that it presents the enforcement in a fairer way and that a more enforceable way of enforcing this bill will allow the flexibility that exists across the province, the diversity that exists across the province, to have municipalities meet the local needs if they wish, but it is entirely their option. They are not required to do anything; they are not forced to do anything; the provincial framework exists and sets the standard across Ontario.

Mr. Chiarelli: I am happy the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) reminded the House that today is the 11th anniversary of his election to the Legislature. I want to personally congratulate him and, I am sure, on behalf of the other members of the Ottawa-Carleton caucus.

He is a hard-working representative for his constituents; I will give him credit for that, but I do want to remind him that in the last election he lost by approximately 300 votes and I understand Dr. Roly Armitage is still waiting in the wings for the next time.

Coming from the Ottawa area, I would like to remind the member for Carleton what the mayor of Ottawa stated after the bill was introduced. A lot of the comments are relevant after the bill was introduced and not before.

This is what Mayor Jim Durrell said “It is better that municipalities be able to decide on their own, rather than have a decision imposed on them by the province.”

I would like to remind the member for Carleton what the Ottawa Citizen said after the bill was introduced, “The decision to give regional governments the option of setting their own Sunday-shopping rules is a reasonable solution to a controversial and complicated problem.”

The member referred to Alderman Mac Harb, who is co-chairman of the CAOSS committee. He recently sent me a letter, and I will quote from it:

“I would like to commend you and the government of which you are a part for the recent decision to proceed with the public hearings into this matter. The government’s willingness to listen to the concerns and opinions of the people of Ontario on this issue should be noted and will not, I am sure, be forgotten. I am confident that the public hearing process will result in a solution satisfactory to the people and the government of Ontario.”

That is from the co-chairman of the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping in the Ottawa area, and I give him a lot of respect for standing up and being counted.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I also want to congratulate my colleague on his anniversary, but more particularly I want to congratulate him on what I think is not a bad speech this afternoon. I am sure it could have been much shorter had there not been so many angry interjections by the Liberals, who were hearing the truth.

I find it interesting that as this debate has gone on, there has been a claim over the last couple of days by the government that there is absolutely no change and that all this legislation does is institutionalize what has already been occurring in Ontario. Of course, we heard the truth just a couple of minutes ago from the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) that there is a major change, that there has been now a passing of the buck down to the municipal governments, that this issue is too hot for the provincial Liberal government to handle, so it has decided to pass the buck to the municipalities.

1720

I found the comments of the member for Carleton on enforceability interesting; in particular, his reference to the lack of enforceability of worker protection under this bill and its companion piece of legislation. It is interesting that this bill is introduced on the one hand, and then they have to introduce a second bill to protect workers from the first bill. That is really what the second bill is all about, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) certainly will be defending that position in the next several weeks as we debate these pieces of legislation.

I want to congratulate the member for Carleton for shedding some light on this issue. I hope as we discuss these bills over the next number of days or weeks that the Liberal members of the Legislature will hear the people speak and will begin to understand the real dilemma and the need to defeat these bills.

Mr. Pollock: I want to join in and compliment the member for Carleton on a great speech. I think the government would do well to listen to some of his comments and take them into consideration.

I also congratulate him on his 11th anniversary. The member for Carleton makes a tremendous contribution to our caucus and, I believe, to this whole assembly. This great speech that he made this afternoon was just an indication of the contribution he makes to this assembly.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I just wanted to say to the member for Carleton that I did indeed listen to his speech and make some notes. Some of the comments that he made at the very beginning of his speech, when I think he was probably staying with his original text, were worth noting.

In particular, he drew to my attention a matter that was drawn to my attention by some of my own members, which they would like to examine in committee, and I repeat what I have said before. If the committee can come up with suggestions that will make this law fairer and more enforceable, I am more than happy to look at them.

In the very beginning, I think the member was touching on some legitimate concerns about notice within municipalities and I suggest that he find out which of his caucus members will be on the committee and make his concerns known to them. We will be very glad to hear his ideas.

Mr. Sterling: It would not be courteous of me not to thank those who have put forward their complimentary remarks about my speech this afternoon and who have wished me --

Interjections.

Mr. Sterling: I will send the member a turkey at Christmas -- those who were giving me their good wishes on my 11th anniversary.

I do want to say -- I think it was a slip of the tongue by the member for Ottawa West -- but if I had lost to Roly Armitage by 300 votes, which the member did say, I would be the first member of the Legislature who had lost an election and was able to occupy a seat here. I think he meant I won by 300.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I think that is a point of privilege.

Mr. Sterling: At any rate, it was a little bit more than 300 votes. I can only say to the member for Ottawa West and other members of the government back benches that I was fortunate enough in the previous elections before my constituency lines were changed -- and 50 per cent of my riding was new this time -- to win by 7500, 8000 and 9000 votes.

I just wanted to indicate to each and every member of the opposition that things can change. The yuppie image that the Premier has put forward will change in the next election. In the last election, people did not know about Sunday shopping. They did not know the government was going to change the law on Sunday shopping. They thought they could rely on the provincial government to maintain a common pause day, and they were fooled. I just hope they will not be fooled the next time.

Ms. Poole: I am pleased to rise today in support of our government’s legislation, which John Coleman of the Windsor Star has so aptly described as the Liberal government’s sensible Sunday shopping legislation; and sensible it is.

It makes sense to allow freedom of choice to communities; it makes sense to extend municipal control over business hours to include Sundays, and it makes sense to offer protection to all workers in Ontario on Sunday, not just those who are fortunate enough to have their stores closed on Sunday. This is sensible legislation because it is fair and it is enforceable.

All this week and throughout the debate, the opposition and third-party members have been predicting dire consequences that await Ontario’s society if this legislation is passed. In reality, these fears with which my friends of the two other parties are grappling -- tumbling dominoes, shopper-choked Sundays and families rent asunder -- are in fact phantom fears. They are illusions.

I guess it is not surprising that we have been hearing some members express their fears, because indeed history tends to repeat itself. As I listen to the complaints of the opposition, I find their fears surprisingly similar to those raised by others over a century ago in dealing with similar Sunday issues.

Controlling Sunday activity, telling people what they may or may not do on Sunday, or how often they may do it or where they may do it, has been the subject of public discussion since the 1800s. Our attitudes have changed and evolved since then. In fact, sometimes when we look back on some of those arguments, we find them cause for surprise, if not outright amusement.

Sunday transportation suffered through years of debate before the turn of the century. Streetcars did not run. Sunday excursions by rail and steamboat were banned. Large numbers of working-class families had no means of leaving their immediate neighbourhoods either to pursue leisure time activities or even to go to church, activities that we take for granted today. Yet in the 1800s, those same people were arguing that this was necessary to preserve a common pause day and religious observance.

Incredibly, in 1886, one man was arrested in Toronto for using his horse and buggy as a taxi to transport people to and from church. It was not until 1897, after some 20 years of debate, that the residents of this city finally had access to streetcar services on Sundays.

Moving a little closer to 1988, some members may remember several decades ago when swings and playground equipment were locked up on Sundays. It used to be illegal to operate wading pools in parks, and there were cases of police actually raiding playgrounds to confiscate bats and balls of children because games and amusements were prohibited on Sunday.

There was also a time when stores put up curtains to prevent window-shopping on Sundays. In fact, I am sure there are a few members in the House today who remember back 25 years ago, when walking down Queen Street and looking in Simpsons and Eaton’s, all you could see were drawn blinds. But Ontario has changed since those days, as have our viewpoints on what constitutes appropriate Sunday behaviour.

Moving along to 1950, the pressing issue of the day was whether professional sports should be allowed on Sunday afternoon. The provincial government of the time, under Premier Leslie Frost -- and I hope the members, or rather the member of the third party is listening – introduced a bill giving municipalities the option of allowing professional sports to be played between 1:30 p.m. and 6 p.m.

1730

Premier Frost maintained that his government’s bill placed the matter in the hands of the people themselves and under the absolute control of their elected municipal officials. He argued that there was nothing wide-open about the act, that it did nothing to induce a community to change its pattern of life. Sound familiar?

Premier Frost was right. He trusted in the inherent wisdom of local councils, in their ability to appropriately and accurately gauge the needs and values of their communities and to fashion laws that took these needs and values into account.

Inexplicably, and I really cannot understand this, his successors, my friends -- or my friend -- of the third party, have somehow come to believe today that they are the sole font of wisdom in this province and that local councils are no longer capable of deciding what is good for their own communities.

Opponents of the Frost government’s bill predicted dire consequences if the bill was passed: the fabric of society would be ripped apart; our children would be corrupted, and there would be more people in mental hospitals.

Today, Sunday sport is an integral part of our community life. I will ask the honourable members: Does anyone there think I am corrupting my son by taking him to a Blue Jays game on Sunday?

Mr. Furlong: Yes, the way they played last night.

Ms. Poole: Actually, my son did see them play last night, but I still would be willing to take him on Sunday.

I again ask the honourable members: Were opponents of Sunday sports right when they asserted that the only people who could be in favour of Sunday sports were “gangsters, communists and foreign elements”?

Moving forward, in 1961 , Ontario municipalities were given the option of allowing Sunday movies and concerts. One prominent opponent said allowing Sunday movies would hasten the spread of communism. Was he right in his claim that if Sunday movies were allowed, “You soon wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between Toronto and Moscow”?

Other changes followed. In 1967, alcohol was allowed with meals; in 1968, there came Sunday afternoon horse-racing, Sunday trade shows, fairs and exhibitions. Again, each of these changes brought controversy but, at the same time, each reflected the growing diversity of our province and today there are few who would like to see all these decisions reversed.

While controversy about Sunday shopping and Sunday legislation is not new, the province has changed dramatically since those debates of the last century. The arguments of our opponents are not original. They want to return to an Ontario which simply does not exist any more.

We are no longer a predominantly Anglo-Saxon society. Most of us live in urban areas. Most women work outside the home. Many more communities depend heavily on tourism. We need to balance the need for a fair and enforceable Sunday-closing law with the reality that a uniform act does not meet the varying needs of our communities.

I realize there has been much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the general area of the opposition and third-party benches, but to claim, as the members opposite do, that this legislation will lead to wide-open Sunday shopping is to ignore the evidence to the contrary.

This government has proposed a good piece of legislation, one that is carefully tailored to meet the needs of this province. It is fair, it is enforceable and it makes sense. Let’s not waste any more time chasing phantom fears. I am convinced that when the people of this province understand this legislation, they will indeed support it.

Mr. Philip: The member talks about an evolutionary process. There is another evolutionary process that she does not talk about, which is the evolutionary process from the very century in which she starts to trace hers, which says that workers have to work six days a week, they have to work 10 and 12 hours a day and they have absolutely no kinds of controls on their leisure life. In fact, schools were started in working-class districts largely after the labour laws prevented the children from working, because they had nothing to do. They had no place for the children to go, because their parents were not at home.

Surely, what we see in this bill is not a progressive evolution but a reactionary evolution. It is a throwback, in fact, to depriving people of time that they can spend with their families. That is not the kind of evolution that we want.

The member talks about evolution. If she looks at George Land, who is one of the great writers on social evolution, she will see he says that in many parts of the evolutionary process one can trace where a particular trend may in fact go too far, and then there has to be a retraction. I suggest to her that even if we follow her so-called evolutionary model, maybe this is one of the instances where it has gone too far.

She talks about the domino theory and says, “Well, it really won’t lead to wide-open Sunday shopping,” but the evidence in western Canada is to the contrary, even though, as my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) has pointed out, it usually takes 10 or 15 years for the domino kind of system to work.

In fact, we already see in British Columbia that North Vancouver did not want to have its stores open. The moment that Vancouver opened, North Vancouver had to open because it was simply losing so much across the border. I just say to the member that she does not know what is going on elsewhere or she would not make that comment.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up. The member for Durham East.

Mr. Cureatz: Oh, the Speaker gave me a couple more seconds. I was hoping it might expand into a few extra minutes. I would not miss the opportunity of having the privilege of responding to the comments of the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) about the proposed legislation.

We will be looking forward with great interest to the standing committee on administration of justice. As the member indicated to all of us, we will have an opportunity where the people of Ontario will be convinced of this great and wonderful piece of legislation brought in by the Four Ponypeople of the Calamity.

I do not think the member canvassed the last provincial election on the basis of this kind of legislation. I say to her and to all the fine people at home watching that I do not remember any Liberal back-bencher canvassing on Sunday shopping, because if one had, we, the third party, probably would not be in as bad shape as we are now.

But lo and behold, the huge Liberal majority government came in and the new people, as I have said before, were intimidated by those four people over there who know the ropes and know how to manipulate new back-benchers. That is what they are. The new people came in, and those four slipped in this little business about, “Let’s dump it on the municipalities.”

If they had to live it over again now, I would bet any money that when they came in with this kind of nonsense about Sunday shopping, now that the new members have been around for six or seven months, they would finally stand up and say: “Wait a minute, fellows. We don’t think that is the way to go.” But they all know now that those four people who are running the show here have made the commitment and they are too embarrassed to stand up.

We, in the opposition, would be in tough shape if the Premier stood up and said: “I have made a mistake. Let’s set another task force to take another look at Sunday shopping” --

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up.

Mr. Cureatz: But he is not going to do that, and in the next election they are going to be in big trouble over there about --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Faubert: I would like to respond and I compliment the member for Eglinton on her remarks on Bill 113. I would particularly like to compliment her on her observation that times have changed and are indeed changing, and Toronto and region and many parts of Ontario are not the same as across the rest of Ontario. This is indeed a diverse province, and that is the very reason that we are putting forward the municipal option. That is why the municipal option is the better way to go.

1740

It is interesting that her observation also was that somehow the remarks of the members in opposition to this bill rise from a myth that somehow one cannot trust municipal councils. I take great exception to this. As a member of local councils for 17 years, I have always found that the local councils are directly affected by public opinion, are the barometers of public opinion and, indeed, respond more quickly to public opinion than any other level of government.

I would say that if the public opinion surveys are to be believed across this province, then any council that wished to bring in a motion to open up Sundays -- because that indeed is how the legislation reads -- surely if there is opposition to that, that person or those persons on council would rally the troops, would get the opposition out. If it was the decision of that municipality or the wish of that municipality that Sunday shopping not be there in that municipality, it would not pass council.

Just as an observation, an example of this happened in North York where the mayor merely wanted a six-month experiment with open Sundays. What happened there is that the resolution was soundly defeated because the public turned out and showed its opposition to that.

On that basis, I would suggest that the local option will serve the public very well on this issue.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am surprised to hear the members of the Liberal Party actually willing to put their voices on the record on this particular bill, because when it comes to their own constituents, they are putting themselves into a big hole by putting this in Hansard. The stand that the Liberal Party is taking in terms of stopping the opportunity for people to enjoy a pause day in this province is not going to reflect very well on the member for Eglinton or the other members of the Liberal Party who are talking on this issue.

Certainly this issue of trusting municipal councils is a completely bogus one when we see that the municipal councils have already passed judgement on this bill and have said the bill is a disaster. Only a small handful of the members of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, less than 10 out of more than 400 municipalities in the province, have supported this bill. They are virtually unanimous in their opposition to the Liberals’ attempt to stick them with a position that the Liberals want, which is wide-open Sunday shopping right across this province.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Morin-Strom: If that is what they believe in, why do they not stand up and admit what their policy actually is and what the consequence of this bill is going to be? I would ask the member for Eglinton to be honest with the people of this province and tell us in fact what the results of this bill are going to be once we get this passed, which they so desperately want.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Eglinton wish to respond?

Ms. Poole: Yes, I do.

Mr. Cureatz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: My colleague still wanted to have the opportunity of saying something.

The Deputy Speaker: How much time is there? There is no more time; I am sorry. Two of the members have extended beyond the two-minute limit.

Ms. Poole: I would like to respond to the remarks by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) to start off with. He talked about the evolutionary process and how this legislation is a throwback to other times when we were working six days per week and workers had no control over the hours they worked. Surely the member must realize that there is legislation in this province and has been for a number of years to prevent abuse of workers as far as the number of hours they work is concerned.

Surely he also realizes that with the companion legislation that is being introduced by the Minister of Labour, there is protection for workers, that they can refuse work that is unreasonable on Sunday.

He also mentioned that I obviously have not travelled much in the west if I do not realize there is evidence to the contrary concerning the domino theory. I beg to differ, but my husband’s family all live in the west right now. I was in Nanaimo not too long ago. We went out on Sunday. Many of the stores were closed on Sunday. The marketplace determined who would open and who would not.

Going on to my friend the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), he says that the committee will give an opportunity to help people understand the legislation. Quite frankly, it will. Both the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) and the member for Durham East refer to the resolution of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. That resolution was before we introduced the legislation. The outcry against this legislation has slowed down enormously since people understood what it is about.

Finally, I would like to mention that there is tremendous, overwhelming support in our caucus for this legislation because it gives a provincial framework, because it is fair, because it is enforceable and because it makes sense.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up.

Mr. Morin-Strom: It is a pleasure to be able to address this legislation, which is going to become a very serious problem for this government in terms of its electability in the next round of provincial elections.

In this bill, Bill 113, the Ontario Liberal government has introduced a law that will allow municipalities to permit large grocery stores, department stores and other types of stores to remain open on Sundays. The Premier has obviously changed his mind since the September election, when he said that he supported a common pause day for Ontario.

During the last parliament, the minority Liberal government established a committee to examine retail store hours. This committee, consisting of members from all three parties, held hearings throughout the province and wrote an extensive report. The total cost of the select committee was more than $90,000 and the result of that report strongly supported the principle of maintaining a common pause day. One of the conclusions to that report was that the least-favourable option would be for the province to shirk its responsibility and transfer the decision-making to municipalities, exactly what the intent of this bill is.

Mr. Philip: Who signed that report?

Mr. Morin-Strom: We are going to get to that shortly.

British Columbia had taken that route and found that the results were considerably negative. The Solicitor General, who is now the sponsor of this bill and responsible for carrying it through this House, was a member of that select committee -- in fact, as I understand it, the chief spokesman for the Liberal members on that committee -- and at that time expressed strong support for the recommendation against widespread Sunday shopping. In fact, in this session as well, only a week before the Liberal flip-flop on this issue, the minister herself called the municipal option “the chicken way out.”

Now we see opposition to this bill building right across this province. Coalitions are building up to fight the bill. Recent public opinion polls show that the opposition has now grown to a majority position, much to the chagrin of the current Liberal government. With a large majority, there is no question that the Ontario Liberals do have the votes to pass anything they want, just like the Mulroney Conservative government has that kind of majority.

The real opposition, though, is in the general public. Bad legislation like this can be stopped by the rallying of public opinion. Even an arrogant majority can be made to back down, as in the case of the Mulroney plans, many of his plans, including the plan to cut pensions several years ago. I would anticipate, through the public hearing process on this bill, that the public is going to get the opportunity to voice its concerns and to rally its opposition to this bill and we will see this Liberal government back down on this legislation.

The Liberals originally wanted speedy passage of their Sunday shopping bills to be finished by the end of this spring session. They refused to agree to open hearings and public input on the legislation, hoping to pre-empt the rising storm of opposition. The New Democrats and the third party have insisted on giving the public a say, demanding public hearings across the province. Our tactics have been able to force the Liberals to agree to full public hearings this summer.

This will provide the opposition groups with the time and the forum to build their case and to stop this government’s plans.

1750

In my view, the essence of this issue is our quality of life. I am concerned that there must be an opportunity for families to have a day of rest, relaxation and reflection. Six days of labour should be a sufficient demand on the people of our community. Children in particular should be able to count on having parents at home for at least one day per weekend. In the case of single parents who work in department and grocery stores, Sunday shopping means many children will be deprived of valuable time with even one parent. In many cases, we have heads of single-parent families, particularly women, who are going to have to be away from their children, and those children will not have a parent with them on their Sundays.

There are, of course, some 365,000 union workers, such as steelworkers in Sault Ste. Marie, eligible to work on Sundays in industries that have continuous operations that require that type of operation seven days a week. Another 170,000 workers currently work on Sundays in restaurants, corner stores and hotels. They do qualify for an alternative day to Sunday as their day of rest, but those workers will tell you that their day off is just not the same as having Sundays off. The option of having a weekday off does not compare, in terms of family life, with being forced to work on a Sunday.

Shopping is, of course, a necessity and a good thing. There is nothing wrong with supplying our daily needs with care and attention to style and imagination. A great retailing industry out there clamours for our attention and is at our service six days a week, but surely we give away too much if we let a common pause day become just like the rest.

This government has to look at the piece of legislation it has. The members of the committee who are going to be looking at this bill over the summer in hearings here in Toronto and across the province will have the opportunity to reconsider their position on this bill, and I would certainly hope they would do so.

I have heard from many of my constituents who have expressed very serious concern about this piece of legislation, and I would just like to pass on several of their comments. I presented a petition with 150 signatures on it from Sault Ste. Marie several days ago. I have another petition here, which I will be presenting shortly. There are several petitions, but I would like to read one of these to give an example of what a number of Sault residents are expressing in terms of their concern about this bill: “In recognition of the importance of a day of pause in our Canadian society, we ask that the Retail Business Holidays Act be maintained and strengthened; that the act remain under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Legislature rather than be transferred to local municipalities for administration.”

Surely we could have done something with the current legislation about the loopholes the government members like to talk about. We could have done that by amending the current bills, rather than going forward with this new bill, Bill 113, which will result inevitably in wide-open Sunday shopping across Ontario.

I have had many Sault residents write me letters of concern about this bill, asking that we stop this government initiative. Certainly, we are doing all we can to do so. I will just read a couple of them, handwritten letters to me on this particular issue. First, a letter from Rosemary Proulx of Campbell Avenue in Sault Ste Marie:

“Dear Mr. Morin-Strom:

“I am writing in regard to the Sunday shopping issue. Being a full-time worker in the retail business, I am definitely opposed to this being identified as a regular shopping day. I feel that there are plenty of shopping hours during the week for people to take advantage of. Coming from a large family, I know and recognize Sunday as a day for the family to be with each other and it gives us a chance to enjoy the finer things in life.”

I do not know how government members respond to letters like that, which I am sure they are receiving as well from their constituents.

I have another one here from Linda Lafrance of Doncaster Road in Sault Ste. Marie: ‘~I believe that the decision regarding open Sunday shopping should remain with the Ontario government and not with each municipality. Also, I am against open Sunday shopping.”

We have all received a considerable amount of literature on this issue from a number of sources. I point out to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, an example that we have here from the Waterloo Regional Sundays for People from the Kitchener-Waterloo area. I will just read its concerns about this issue:

“Sunday closing legislation is currently under fire in our community and across the province. The Peterson government has announced that it intends to transfer the regulation of Sunday and holiday store hours to the municipalities. This decision will ultimately lead to wide-open Sunday shopping in most communities. If, for example, Guelph were to decide to allow Sunday openings, Cambridge and the Kitchener-Waterloo areas would be pressed to open as well to avoid losing retail sales to Guelph.

“Business, labour, churches, social groups and all four of our MPPs are opposed to Sunday shopping, yet the Peterson government still plans to move ahead with their proposal. This is unacceptable to the people of Ontario.”

Mr. Philip: Who are those four MPPs?

Mr. Morin-Strom: Most interestingly, I hear a question, “Who are those four MPPs?” One of them is my colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) and the other three MPPs are MPPs from the Kitchener-Waterloo area who I understand belong to the Liberal Party.

Mr. Philip: Oh, my goodness; don’t they love to have it both ways.

Mr. Morin-Strom: That is right, including the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) and the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp). One certainly has to question how the members of their party can take positions against Sunday shopping and then at the same time support such regressive, backward-looking legislation as we have here.

Another area that is very seriously concerned is the farm community. I have here a letter from the United Co-operatives of Ontario to myself, regarding Sunday business operations.

“The board of directors of United Cooperatives of Ontario has recently considered this question and, as a result, has taken the decision that they are firmly opposed to any extension of Sunday business operations beyond that currently permitted by law.

“Furthermore, we do not feel that the issue or question should be left to municipalities for a decision as that may lead to an inconsistent and chaotic set of regulations across the province.

“Many of our member co-operatives have already indicated to us that they strongly support the position outlined above. United Cooperatives of Ontario and its affiliated member co-operatives represent over 90,000 members, 2,600 employees and conducts business in 195 locations in the province of Ontario.

“We trust that all members of the provincial Legislature will give due attention and recognition to the wishes of those groups and individuals who oppose the further extension of business operations on Sunday.”

We certainly know that the opposition goes far beyond their organization. We have all heard, in particular, from the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping.

If ever there was a broad-based coalition on one issue, this is it. Their group includes a list of more than 200 organizations right across this province. I will just give a selection of some of the groups that are strongly in opposition to this bill.

Mr. Cureatz: No, I want to hear it all. I have to hear it all.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Well, I think we are getting close to the end of today’s session so I am going to just go through a few of them: the Anglican Diocese of Toronto, the Baptist Convention, Canadian Tire Dealers’ Association, the Catholic Women’s League, Canadian Jewellers Association, the Canadian Shoe Retailers Association, Christian Labour Association of Canada, the Consumers’ Association of Canada.

If this is supposed to be a bill that allows consumers greater opportunities for shopping, why on earth would the Consumers Association of Canada be standing in opposition to this bill?

The list goes on and on and includes the Institute for Christian Studies, the Lutheran Council of Canada, National Association of Brick Distributors, Retail Merchants Association of Canada, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, the Stratford City Centre -- one of our real tourist communities -- the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the employees of the province of Ontario and the United Co-operatives of Ontario, whose letter I have just read.

I think the time is done for us for this week, so at this point, I would like to adjourn the debate.

On motion by Mr. Morin-Strom, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Oh, the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) has already fled the precinct. I would like, for the benefit of the member for Durham East, and others, to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, June 13, and Tuesday. June 14, the legislation will be dealt with in the following order: a continued second reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, followed by second reading of Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act; and following that, the resumed second-reading debate on Bill 128, An Act to amend the Planning Act, and then second readings of Bills 86, 87, 88, 124 and 148.

On Wednesday, June 15, we will consider an interim supply motion, which will be tabled by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), followed on that day by legislation not completed on Tuesday. On Thursday, June 16, in the morning we will consider private members’ business standing in the names of the member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner) and the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan).

In the afternoon of Thursday we will continue with legislation announced earlier in the statement. Any additional business will be announced, following the usual consultation.

Mr. Breaugh: Does it hurt so much to use the word?

Hon. Mr. Conway: No, it never hurts me to speak of or participate in consultation. I would also like at this time to provide early notice to honourable members and the staff that the House will not meet on Thursday, June 23.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.