Hansard Transcript 1988-Jun-13 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Just before I recognize members for members’ statements: On Tuesday of last week, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) asked if I would consider a few extra arguments related to the question of privilege presented by the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), on which I had just ruled. I agreed to consider this matter further and I would now like to apprise the House of that consideration.

The member for Oshawa stated that he had sat through the hearings of the standing committee considering the freedom-of-information bill at the committee stage, where “it was made abundantly clear to all members on the committee that there was nothing in this act which would infringe upon the traditional rights of members of the assembly to ask questions and to seek information.”

He further stated, “It was said at the time that was not necessary” -- to put forward amendments -- because “this bill would not infringe in any way, shape or form on the traditional rights of members of the assembly to seek information.”

On this point, the Speaker has a duty in making certain that the rights of members to seek information is not in any way abrogated. I have looked into this matter and I must conclude that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the traditional method for members to seek information in this House are two distinct and separate matters.

The freedom-of-information act does not distinguish members from any other person in the general public and, therefore, members are subject to the administrative regulations attached to the act, but I fail to see how the coming into force of this act affects in any way the traditional rights of members to seek information of the government by the methods prescribed in the standing orders of this House.

The honourable member asked me as well to look into the application of section 52 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which reads as follows: “Except so far as is provided by section 40, nothing in this act shall be construed to deprive the assembly, or a committee or a member thereof of any right, immunity, privilege or power that the assembly might otherwise have been entitled to exercise or enjoy,” Revised Statutes of Ontario 1980, chapter 235, section 52; and of subsection 63(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which states, “This act shall not be applied to preclude access to information that is not personal information and to which access by the public was available by custom or practice immediately before this act comes into force.”

Both of these sections seem to me to address the same point and have the same desired effect, that is, to preserve the ancient rights and privileges inherent to members of this Legislature. Both sections are there to preserve those rights. But again, I must say that those rights are exactly what they have always been in the matter which concerns us today, and that is the right to seek information, not the right to receive information.

The Speaker has the duty to ensure that the members’ rights to seek information are preserved according to the standing orders that this House has passed in order to govern itself. Those standing orders -- and the members might wish to refer themselves to standing order 88 -- state that an answer must be provided within a certain number of days. That is where the Speaker’s duties end. It has never been the duty of any Speaker to look at the quality or the quantity of information provided.

As I have said, the Speaker is the protector of the rights of members to seek information, but is not here to give legal advice nor to advise members on the application of the law of the province. If members feel that it should be their right, under the freedom-of-information act, to seek information and not be submitted to the administrative regulations under the act, then my only advice can be, under the circumstances, that this House has it within its power to propose and adopt amendments to the act. This cannot and should not take the form of amendments to the standing orders of the House.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: The Cambridge hospital board will make an announcement later this afternoon, terminating Don Robertson as the administrator of the Cambridge Memorial Hospital. The question we must ask is this: Was the Cambridge hospital board given the choice of delivering Robertson’s scalp in return for budget relief? The comprehensive Woods Gordon report, completed over several months, found the hospital to be well-run, well-managed and among the most cost-effective of the hospitals in its group.

The Cambridge Academy of Medicine, as recently as Friday last, issued a unanimous endorsement of the administration of the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, and this is broadly supported by the residents of Cambridge. It is common knowledge in the Waterloo region that the Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Barkin, was overheard by several individuals, in a recent social setting, to remark, “I’ll have Robertson’s head on a platter.”

This remark was made prior to the hastily contrived six-hour Stoughton report that condemned the hospital administration. This manner of vindictiveness is no way to run a ministry. It is a totally inappropriate way for a senior official to behave. It would appear that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan); her deputy, Dr. Barkin; and his errand boy, Dr. Stoughton, forced the hospital board to choose between delivering the administrator’s head or quality patient care for the people of Cambridge.

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

Mr. Sterling: Bill 109, which is an act to establish a French-language board for the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, is fast becoming a cause for great concern. The introduction of this bill was supported by all members of the Legislature and by a number of groups in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

While we raised specific concerns, the concept was, nevertheless, agreed to. To assure that we were setting off on the right step, I asked the minister about the constitutionality of such a move -- a unified francophone school board -- and I was informed by the minister that this “legislation respects section 93 rights relating to our Constitution” and that he was not prepared to seek a referral to the courts.

I now looked to the standing committee on social development, which is meeting this afternoon, only to find out that the government is intending to introduce an amendment which calls into question the very constitutionality of this bill. What is at stake is the educational future of 15,000 to 20,000 young people in Ottawa-Carleton and many teachers. All the while, we do not really know what the intent of this government is, nor do we have any indication that this bill will be good.

1340

KEITH ACTON

Mr. Ballinger: Last Thursday, I had the privilege of attending a testimonial dinner in the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, which is in my riding of Durham-York, in honour of Keith Acton, the community’s most famous athlete. Keith Acton was the tenacious little centre who scored two game-winning goals to help the Edmonton Oilers of the National Hockey League achieve yet another Stanley Cup, something that most of us here in this Legislature, I am sure, have dreamed about doing.

This genuine and talented young man is a classic example of how a dedicated individual, although extremely small in physical size, achieved the ultimate boyhood dream by, first, making it in the NHL and then getting his name inscribed on the much-coveted Stanley Cup this year. Thanks to the hard work and loyalty of a couple of Stouffville ‘s progressive businessmen, Jim Mason, editor of the Stouffville Sun, and Dave Woods, owner of The Greens, a sports restaurant, Keith Acton received the much-deserved public recognition he has so rightly earned after almost a decade as a pro hockey player.

As well as being a dedicated athlete, Keith has been a tireless and public supporter of the Children’s Wish Foundation of Ontario, an organization which assists terminally ill children, with his sponsoring of an annual celebrity golf tournament which is held in my riding and which attracts sports celebrities from all across Canada. I am pleased to publicly support and congratulate Keith on behalf of the residents of Durham-York, and I will look forward to seeing the new entrance sign being erected in his name, which will read, “Welcome to Whitchurch-Stouffville, home of Keith Acton.”

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, you will remember, as will other members of this House, that the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston), once the Minister of Health, was removed from that position because of his incapacity to bring forward legislation. Time and time again, he brought legislation forward and then dumped on us hundreds of amendments after the fact and immediately before we had committee hearings. Now we have the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) trying to replace the member for Bruce in terms of total incompetence and inefficiency.

We have had to repeal one law and bring in another in terms of Bill 76 being replaced by Bill 125. Now, as of Friday, we received over 60 pages of amendments, and another three or four today, to amend a piece of legislation we are supposed to be dealing with this afternoon in committee. Normally, we might expect a compendium to be put forward with these many amendments being brought forward, because it is bigger than your average bill; and this is a new bill.

Not only that, but as the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) raised, there are serious questions now raised by the government itself about the constitutionality of its own legislation. It is trying to put in a clause in this new piece of legislation which says if it is proven to be unconstitutional, one section can be lifted.

This party refuses to deal with this legislation this afternoon on this kind of basis. This is poor planning. This is a government which is incapable of bringing forward legislation. We will expect the minister perhaps to withdraw the legislation entirely and bring it forth in a package we can deal with in a reasonable fashion.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mrs. Cunningham: It is our understanding that the government recently slashed the Ministry of Skills Development budget by $500 million, and of that enormous cut, we understand the Futures program lost $43 million in funding. Many of the Futures programs have helped young people across Ontario. Thousands of young people suffer from specific problems in finding work because of a lack of education or experience or because they are living in areas of the province where economic recovery has been slower.

We trust that the Futures programs, which are successful and desperately needed in many parts of this province, will not be subjected to any funding cuts. The timing of this announcement exhibits a total lack of planning and management.

Further, I wonder why the government has not announced what it plans to do with the savings from these cuts; and more important, why no assurances have been given to help other programs within the Ministry of Skills Development. The minister seems to be unaware of the realities of his Futures program for hard-to-employ youth, as well as of those of the Transitions program for older persons who are unemployed. Both programs are in desperate need of support.

PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing a special event that occurred 90 years ago, on June 12, 1898, the establishment of a free, independent, democratic republic of the Philippines. Philippine Independence Day is not only an important date in history, but it has great significance to our Canadian citizens of Filipino heritage.

In recognition of the important contributions that Canadians of Filipino heritage have made to the economic development and cultural enrichment of our province and country, the blue, red and white flag of the independent Philippines was raised in Toronto on June 12, 1988. These Philippine colours have become an international symbol of the indomitable spirit of democracy and serve as an inspiration to us all to strengthen the bonds of friendship, respect and affection we have for the Filipino community.

With us in the gallery today to help us celebrate this historic event is Rick Falco, president of the National Congress of Filipino-Canadian Associations. To him and all Filipinos, we say [remarks in Tagalog]. Congratulations.

YORK CENTRAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Cousens: I am very pleased today to rise in support of the York Central Hospital in the riding of York Centre, which also serves the people of the riding of Markham. Twenty-five years ago this year, York Central Hospital was opened to begin its service to the people of our community. This morning we celebrated with flag-raising ceremonies in communities around the hospital and at the hospital itself.

I can say this is one hospital that is serving the people of our province. I am grateful for the fact that the medical staff, the professional staff and the trustees have always had the best interests of their people at heart. Ontario’s hospitals are something Ontario can be proud of, and certainly York Central is one of the best.

Mr. Speaker: We have completed the allotted time for members’ statements. Point of order; the member for Windsor-Riverside.

RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL DAYS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), when he raises legitimate and important national days in the Legislature, is going to refer to and speak on behalf of the government of Ontario, I think it is an inappropriate use of members’ statements. If he is going to speak on his own behalf, then it is appropriate during members’ statements, but if it is on behalf of the government or the Legislature, then we will do them by unanimous consent and do a go-around for each of the caucuses. I think the way he is presenting them is inappropriate and a misuse of members’ statements.

Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of personal privilege: I think that should be brought up with the House leaders. I think the member is quite right. Let the parties make that determination among themselves and we will certainly follow that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Windsor-Riverside has made his suggestion, which has been responded to by the member.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Deputy Premier and Treasurer about housing speculation. The Treasurer may or may not have seen an article in the Toronto Star on Saturday that referred to a letter which had been received from somebody working within our financial sector, who claimed that as much as 15 per cent of mortgages financed by the financial institution for which he was working were being given over to people who were speculating and planning to resell within a year.

Does the Treasurer not agree that if that volume of speculation is in fact taking place in the marketplace in southern Ontario, his government has an obligation to put a stop to that kind of speculation? Surely he would agree that the effect of that activity is simply to drive other people out of the market, to make it impossible for ordinary people to purchase homes and to make it impossible for the market to work in a way that is anything like fair.

1350

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I did not have a chance to read Saturday’s Toronto Star, but I will undertake to have a look at the letter to which the honourable member refers. Since the rest of his question is predicated on whether that sort of business practice is customary and what do I think about it, I think perhaps I will wait and see what the letter said.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me refer the Treasurer to two comments that have been made by two experts in the housing field, Frank Clayton and Wayne King.

As the Treasurer knows, Mr. Clayton is associated with Clayton Research Associates, which does a lot of housing market research in southern Ontario. Mr. Clayton told our researchers this morning: “We know speculation is there. Without speculators, prices wouldn’t be going up this fast.”

Mr. King, who is the vice-president of Brethour Research Associates, says that in his estimation in some of the downtown condo projects as many as 80 per cent of the units that are being sold are being sold to speculators and that in the suburban condo buildings as many as 50 per cent of the units are being sold in speculative activity rather than for people to live in.

This is the opinion of people who are watching the market closely and who are telling us what is going on in the market. The Treasurer can no longer turn a blind eye to this level and degree and extent of speculative bidding in the marketplace. Why does he not put a stop to it simply by bringing in a speculation tax?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member knows that the thrust of the government’s policy through the Ministry of Housing is to provide in this community and right across the province, where possible, an improved number of affordable units. The application of the provincial budget this year to the requirements of the ministry has been substantial, I would not say that it has grown faster than any other ministry, but it is one of those major priorities that the honourable member would be aware of. That is the thrust of government policy.

Mr. B. Rae: I know what the thrust of government policy is. That is why I am asking a question about why he does not change its thrust. It is not because we do not know what they are trying to do, it is because we know what they are trying to do that we are asking a question about speculation, because they are not doing anything to stop it.

When Michael Wilson brought in his capital gains holiday, the Treasurer himself said in this House -- I can recall him saying it and I can recall listening to him saying it outside – “As a result of the capital gains holiday, there is going to be all kinds of speculation going on, all kinds of unproductive investment going on, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.”

The Treasurer was right. The capital gains holiday has produced a bonanza of speculation.

Now that we have growing evidence, that we have all the ads in the papers for condos and most of those condos are being purchased by people who have not the slightest intention in the world of living in them, I would like to ask the Treasurer: If that is the case, and he must know by now that it is the case, why does he not simply introduce a speculation tax, which will stop that kind of totally unproductive economic activity?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I have been trying to recall my comments at the time of the Michael Wilson initiative. There have been two or three federal initiatives in capital gains tax, once to remove the tax and then partly to reinstate it.

At the time, I was concerned that money would be invested in nonproductive things like condominiums in Hawaii and in Florida and artwork and things like that. While we are very interested in art, we felt that would be inappropriate.

To finally get to an answer to the honourable member’s question -- I thought I might as well leave it until his second supplementary -- we are not planning a land speculation tax at this time.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me ask the Treasurer to cast his mind to a particular property, a particular set of buildings, a particular set of apartments where people are being hammered at the present time, and ask him how he can justify this hands-off, do-nothing, King Canute approach to the speculative housing binge that is now ongoing?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I thought I was Marie Antoinette.

Mr. B. Rae: He was Marie Antoinette last week. This week he is King Canute. God only knows what he will be next week.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am working on Farouk.

Mr. B. Rae: He could be Farouk, whatever, it does not matter. King Farouk in a laundromat; that is about how at home he will be.

The question I have for the Treasurer involves an apartment unit at 914 Yonge Street, which is what we call a hidden condominium. It was lived in as if it was apartments, although it was registered as a condominium. Therefore, it was not covered by rental housing protection.

I would like to ask the Treasurer what he would do if he were a tenant who was told by his landlord on Friday that he had a choice and that choice was, “You either get out or you pay up to $200,000 for an 800-foot apartment.” What would his advice be to that tenant?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am always amazed at the convolutions of the business mind, both in Toronto and, I suppose, elsewhere. I cannot answer the honourable member’s question. I think this is not the first instance where apartments have been condominiumized. We have certain controls in legislation over those transitions and they certainly do not provide the perfection the Leader of the Opposition seeks.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer is wrong; there is no protection for these tenants. The Treasurer should know that in December 1987 a company named Nansa Resources began purchasing many of the units at 914 Yonge Street and, in turn, sold them less than three months later for a huge profit. For example, price increases show a jump from $26,500 to $40,000 on a bachelor apartment -- that is nearly a 50 per cent increase -- and a jump from $32,000 to $106,000 on a two-bedroom apartment. That is a 230 per cent increase in a very, very short time period.

The question I have for the Treasurer is this: What is he going to do to stop the speculation in units such as is going on at 914 Yonge Street? This is not some academic pursuit. This is a question that is very, very real to people who up until Friday thought they were tenants and discovered on Friday that they were not; they were living in a condo. What is the government going to do with these people?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We do not have any action planned at this time, but I am sure the Ministry of Housing, which has the direct responsibility in these areas, is looking at that matter.

Mr. B. Rae: The fact is that the government of Ontario has turned this city into a place which more resembles Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous than it does a place where working people can live. That is precisely what the government has done. They are running fashion shows for the rich and famous on Friday, while there are 20,000 homeless people. That is what they have turned this province into and that is what they are turning this city into.

What is the government going to do for those people at 914 Yonge Street, many of them elderly and living on fixed incomes, who on Friday were told, “You either pay up or you get out”? What is the government going to do to protect them? Tell us now.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: There is certainly no one in this chamber on the government side who is feeling apologetic about what is happening to Toronto. This is an excellent city and we are leading the world in many of our endeavours. We have also made application of the provincial budget to the provision of affordable housing in a way of which we really are proud. The leadership that the honourable minister is giving this endeavour is something that is commendable, and I know all members in all parties would agree with that assessment.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Solicitor General and it relates to activities in her ministry that she may be able to assist the House with. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether either her ministry or any other ministry of the government she is aware of has in fact conducted any impact studies with respect to the effects of Sunday shopping on Ontario communities. Have any such studies been undertaken?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Not to my knowledge.

1400

Mr. Brandt: In light of the fact that a recent study in the United States undertaken by a consumers’ group has indicated that, in so far as the popularity of Sunday shopping is concerned, the only demand Sunday shopping appears to have with respect to consumers is that it has turned out to be the weakest shopping day of the week in the United States, that fewer people shop on that particular day; the argument put forward by many indicating that Sunday shopping is to be put in place for the convenience of consumers is obviously wrong.

What the impact of this is going to be, quite frankly, I say to the Solicitor General and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), is to inconvenience workers in this province. Why, in light of those kinds of statistics which are available in many jurisdictions, is the Solicitor General and her government moving forward with legislation which is obviously extremely ill-thought-out and very unpopular?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to remind the member for Sarnia that, for one thing, we have no idea what municipalities will decide to change in the wake of this bill. If I could judge by what the municipalities are saying at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, there will be very little change in the shopping habits of this province after this bill is passed. There will be greater enforcement in place and less abuse of the bill. Unless AMO misleads us, they do not want to open and they certainly will not be forced to open.

I would add one other interesting comment, that the statistics we have been given by department stores which have changed in the United States are not the same statistics which were indicated by the member for Sarnia. Rather, as statistics tend to do, we found that one group of stores which was pushing for more openness had figures to validate its position and another group of stores which was pushing for less openness had statistics to validate its position.

Mr. Brandt: I have to say to the minister that we have seen statistics which have indicated different sets of facts, particularly emanating from her government from time to time.

As the Minster of Labour insisted on involving himself in the last question, perhaps my final supplementary on the issue of Sunday shopping could relate to his ministry, at least in part.

Again to the Solicitor General, there was an article in the London Free Press on May 28 which indicated that in Alberta, when the Sunday shopping legislation was brought in, workers were originally advised that they would not have to work on Sundays. It appears that as a result of the whole issue of Sunday shopping spreading in that province, as we predict it will here in Ontario, workers are now being hired with a very clear caveat that they must be prepared to work on Sundays.

In light of that, why is the government stubbornly holding to the fact that all it is doing is passing this on to the municipalities when it knows full well it is opening the door to wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Sarnia may wish at another time to address the question to the Minister of Labour, but I would comment that in my opinion, although I am not the minister, there are already thousands of people working in the retail business who, for the first time, will be protected, who never had protection with regard to Sunday working. The new people will have this protection; indeed, so will those already working. This in fact brings new protection which did not exist before in this province.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Eves: In view of the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I will direct my question to the Deputy Premier.

I have some very serious concerns about the way the government has dealt with the issue surrounding Cambridge Memorial Hospital. Threats of firing, taking over the hospital and blacklisting have come from the Ministry of Health. The ministry is demanding that the hospital board fire the administrator, Don Robertson, yet all indications are that the hospital is one of the most efficient and well-managed hospitals in the province.

It would appear that because hospital staff went public with their side of the story, the minister and deputy minister have taken the harshest of retaliatory steps towards the hospital.

Will the minister commit to this House that a public and impartial inquiry will be launched into the controversy surrounding Cambridge Memorial Hospital?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No.

Mr. Eves: As the minister is aware, the Minister of Health sent in an investigator, one Mr. Stoughton, to look into Cambridge’s deficit situation. He was appointed to do this on May 16. The Woods Gordon report on Cambridge Memorial Hospital took over three months to complete. Mr. Stoughton spent a grand total of eight hours at Cambridge hospital. It seems the implications exist that the investigator the ministry sent in needed only eight hours to do his report because his findings were already a foregone conclusion as far as the Ministry of Health is concerned. Would the minister agree with that?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No, but I do feel that -- oh, the member has another supplementary. I will wait.

Mr. Eves: If I may enlighten the Deputy Premier somewhat -- at least we do get a straight answer from the Deputy Premier, which is more than I can say about the Premier -- some three days before Mr. Stoughton was appointed, the Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Martin Barkin, on May 13, 1988, blew up at a meeting of the district health councils at L’Hotel in Toronto and said, “I am going to have Don Robertson’s head on a platter.”

If we can confirm that in fact is what the Deputy Minister of Health said three days before the minister’s investigator was appointed, would the minister not agree that he should look into removing his Deputy Minister of Health or does he condone this sort of action on the part of his civil servants?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I certainly do want to say something more about the situation that the honourable member has brought to our attention. I do not agree, of course, with his assessment of the situation. I am not the Minister of Health and certainly I do not answer for her. She is quite capable of doing that on her own, as is her deputy, who is a very competent person with a well-known record both as a medical practitioner and as a hospital administrator.

I would also like to say just a word about Mr. Stoughton, who the member says went in with some preformed ideas and eight hours later came up with his recommendation. I do not know about the time lag but I do know that Mr. Stoughton, as the chief administrator of the Toronto Hospital, has the highest possible reputation for integrity. I would say he is a servant of his profession, not of the government or any aspect of it. In this connection, I can assure the honourable member that he is taking a wrong tack if he is trying to impugn the integrity or independent ability of Mr. Stoughton.

Mr. Speaker, if you will give me just a moment, I think the member will be aware that, over a number of years, hospitals, including Cambridge Memorial Hospital, have for good and appropriate reason overspent their budget. There is no thought that the money was misallocated; far from it. All of these methods of administration are shared and inspected by the ministry from time to time. The idea that somehow or other the minister or the Treasury is looking for somebody who is misappropriating funds is totally wrong.

In the three years that I have been Treasurer, we picked up the deficits the first year. The second year we picked them up with review and, so that we would not punish those hospitals who did live within their budget, we raised their base by an additional half of one per cent, which is a lot of money when you know that billions of dollars are spent in hospital operations.

For the last two years, we have picked up the deficit, put that in the base, and even those who were able to live within the deficit we raised by a half a per cent. This year, because the former Minister of Health very properly informed the hospitals that we were improving once again the base by a substantial amount, an average of between seven and eight per cent, that we expected the administrators to live within their budget and they are now doing --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

1410

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

Mr. Mackenzie: I want to go back to the Treasurer of Ontario concerning the Massey retirees who have been cheated out of their benefits and his response in this House on June 1. The minister said that the Canadian Auto Workers made an agreement with Massey Combines. Part of that agreement was to put the responsibility for the pensions and other auxiliary benefits with the company that employed them.

I know the Treasurer has had a letter from the assistant to the director of the CAW which says very clearly:

“I wish to inform you and all other honourable members that at no time did the CAW make any agreement to put the responsibility for the pensions and other auxiliary benefits of Massey-Ferguson Industries Ltd. retirees over to Massey Combines Corp. We were never consulted by either level of government or the corporation officials about the restructuring of Massey-Ferguson Industries Ltd., or were we informed about the Varity commitment to the unfunded liability of the pension plan should Massey Combines Corp. go bankrupt.”

He has included the documentation in that letter to the Treasurer. I do not think the Treasurer would deliberately lie to this House, but obviously he has misled the members of this House and I am wondering if he has some comment on it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully to the member for Hamilton East. Will you withdraw your last comment?

Mr. Mackenzie: I will withdraw it and ask if the Treasurer has inadvertently misled the members of this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is not funny, but I would like to say to the honourable member that in order for the union to proceed with its agreement that its members would accept employment with the successor company, in this case Massey Combines, that successor responsibility had to be accepted.

Certainly, any comment of mine was in no way trying to lay blame for what has happened to Massey over the last few weeks and months. The blame for that, if any, lies with the farm economy in North America, which did not respond as the rest of the economy responded. There is presently a 200 per cent overcapacity to build combines, and it so happened that the costs associated with the Brantford plant and the administration that led to the downturn in its share of the market led it into receivership.

The taxpayers of Canada and Ontario have already committed $200 million to maintaining those jobs. The member may question the intelligence of the people who were in government at the time that was first entered into or at the time the contract was renewed, and that is his right, but we feel that, in both instances, the best interests of the taxpayers were supported and additional employment was maintained.

All of us in this House, including the honourable member and myself, wish that it had been different, but in fact the company is now in receivership and is no longer continuing to operate as it was under its own board.

Mr. Mackenzie: To continue with the letter and the documents that went to the Treasurer of Ontario: “The record will show we were notified by the corporation of the restructuring of Massey-Ferguson Industries Ltd. into Varity and Massey Combines Corp. only at the conclusion of the restructuring agreement between the corporation and the government.”

It is also very clear, as the Treasurer is aware, that several hundred salaried employees lost their benefits as well and that they were never notified or consulted about the transfer of responsibility for their pensions and other auxiliary benefits to Massey Corp.

The government was part of this deal that cheated the workers at Massey; clearly part of it. The province has several million dollars in Varity. What is the Treasurer going to do about these workers who gave their life to that company and who now find out they do not have the benefits they thought they would have when they retired?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member is correct in that the auto workers were not at the table when the restructuring of the companies took place, but they did sign the agreement and unfortunately --

Mr. B. Rae: The successor agreement.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The successor agreement is still there. The point is --

Mr. B. Rae: No; they did not sign. You are making the same mistake --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Any further response?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The whole matter, as the member is aware, has resulted in the bankruptcy of the company, which is no longer in operation. Varity, as the honourable member knows, was separated under the provisions of the agreement that the honourable member is talking about, and without that agreement the whole thing would have been in bankruptcy three years ago.

The honourable member should be aware of that. He may not be prepared to admit it, but it is the truth.

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education. It has to do with the constitutionality of Bill 109, his francophone school board or boards for Ottawa-Carleton.

Late last Friday, the minister sent to the opposition critics over 60 amendments, which I have in front of me now, including one which admits that any or all sections of this bill may indeed be unconstitutional, and it provides for an automatic severance from the bill of the offending clauses.

We understand as well that this weekend the minister sent to the planning committee in Ottawa specific copies of a draft proposal which would drop the one-board, two-sectors approach and provided a proposal with two separate and distinct boards. We do not know the status of the advice that that group has given the minister.

Given that these activities indicate a realization by his government that Bill 109, as it now stands, is unconstitutional, and given that the minister is scrambling to rectify the problem, will the minister tell this House how the standing committee on social development can proceed this afternoon, in less than an hour, to do clause-by-clause and approve the bill in the condition in which he has set it up this weekend?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to point out to the honourable member that yes, indeed, we did circulate a package of amendments which was distributed to both opposition caucuses to be shared with their members.

I might also point out that in my statement upon introduction of this legislation and during the course of the second-reading debate, we made it quite clear that copies would be made available for widespread public consultation within the Ottawa region and throughout Ontario.

We also made it clear that, given the time frames, many of the suggestions which came through that process of open community consultation could not be included in the bill that was printed for consideration in this House and that they would be dealt with during the course of the committee’s consideration. That, indeed, has been the case.

With reference to the suggestion that a particular clause in the amendments which are being put forward in any way acknowledges or suggests any concern as to the constitutionality of the bill, I want to assure the member that that is not the case in any way, shape or form.

Mr. Jackson: It is the same amendment we had put in Bill 30. When our party proposed amendments to Bill 30 that would allow the voluntary amalgamation of public and separate boards, his Attorney General (Mr. Scott) said it was unconstitutional, but when the minister is now trying to force an amalgamation-type model into this bill, his Attorney General, we believe, says it is constitutional.

The minister refuses and has steadfastly refused to table any legal opinions on this matter. His Attorney General was specifically invited to provide input at the social development committee. He has refused. We were supposed to meet with him today.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary?

Mr. Jackson: This bill affects hundreds of teachers, thousands and thousands of students, property and millions of dollars of taxes. Will the minister agree to refer this matter to the courts for appeal, to determine whether Bill 109 is constitutional, before he creates chaos with a subsequent court ruling?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I think there are two or three questions in the supplementary, but let me begin by indicating to the member that the bill and the proposals which are before the Legislature and the social development committee today do, in fact, provide for the establishment of an umbrella board structure in the Ottawa-Carleton community. That is what the francophone community in Ottawa-Carleton has been asking for for 20 years. His party, of course, chose to deny that over the course of the past 20 years, so it does not surprise me that today the honourable member still makes those arguments.

I will point out to the member that in our attempts to put in place a structure which has an umbrella board operation, we have done so in a manner we believe is totally constitutional, and the advice we received does in fact reinforce that.

1420

With reference to the member’s point, that the clause we introduced by way of amendment is similar to one in Bill 30, I cannot speak as to why that was introduced during the course of the Bill 30 considerations. It is interesting to note, though, that although that was put there, I suppose as a precaution, it was totally unnecessary because --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Perhaps this debate can continue in committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before I recognize the next questioner, I would like to draw the members’ attention to the visitor we have in the upper east gallery, the federal member for Nickel Belt, John Rodriguez. Welcome.

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING BOARDS

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Many farmers in my area have expressed their concern with the proposed Canada/USA trade deal and the possible effect it might have on them. The minister has vocalized concern for the effect of the trade deal on the future of agricultural boards which are there to help and to protect the farmers. More recently the federal government has been bringing in people who have been trying to reassure them that they have nothing to worry about, that the boards that represent agriculture are going to be there and will be inviolate, that the government will be continuing to protect them and that they have nothing to fear.

The farmers in my area are now saying: “We’re confused. Whom do we believe? What is going on?” My question to the minister is, what is the future of the boards with regard to the trade deal proposal?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Let me say, first of all, that there is a tremendous amount of concern in rural Ontario about the free trade agreement, so much so that no matter where you travel in the province you see anti-free-trade signs posted here, there and all over.

We all know that marketing boards were not even supposed to be on the table in the first place, but we discovered later that they were. Then the federal government came along and said, “Fear not, marketing board producers, we will protect you by adding products to the import control list and that will be a suitable safeguard for the removal of tariffs.”

What the federal government has not said is at what levels it is prepared to add products to the import control list. The federal government has told the chicken industry that it has no intentions of adding chicken products to the import control list, so members know what that will do to the producers and the processors.

The Ontario Egg Producers’ Marketing Board is very concerned that the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency will be considered a public entity, and that means it will not be able to use producer levies in order to export surplus product.

There is a lot of concern. I could go on and on and talk about the concerns there are on the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Owen: The entire scenario of the trade deal has seen a federal government which has continually said one thing and done something completely different. I would like to ask the question: What is the outlook for maintenance of the supply management industry in these multilateral negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member is quite right when he says that the federal government says something and then does something different. The federal government talked about a compensation package for those producers who are going to suffer losses, so in the removal of the two-price wheat system, where we are going to lose $45 million each and every year under the free trade agreement, the federal government comes along and says, “We’ll compensate you for one year only, to the tune of $45 million.”

They still have not announced a compensation package for the grape growers down in the Niagara region, so we really do not know what the federal government is up to. I will tell members that we are working very closely with the federal government to make sure it protects the marketing boards and the supply management system.

We are trying to get assurance from the federal government that it will do that. We are also working very closely with the different producer groups to make sure that they are taking measures in the event that the supply management systems may not be kept in the same state they are in today. We are working closely with the government, the producer groups and the processors to try to protect this very important system.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: In talking to members of the hospital board at Cambridge Memorial Hospital, they had this to say: “We’re being forced to dump Don” -- Don Robertson, the administrator -- “We’re being forced to sacrifice Don.”

Mr. Speaker: To whom are you asking the question?

Mr. Farnan: I am asking this of the Deputy Premier. I asked the board members, “Is there any just cause why this man should be terminated?” They said: “No, but we are being forced by the ministry. If we do not fire him, they will send in a supervisor. They will fire Robertson. They will fire the board. We are doing this in the hope that we can keep some local autonomy and we can get the $3 million.” It used to be 30 pieces of silver; now it is $3 million.

My question to the Deputy Premier is: Is this the way to run a ministry, with bullying and intimidation, where a man who has administrated a hospital, the most cost-effective hospital --

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

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I object to the terms in which the honourable member has placed his question. When he thinks about it, maybe he would even consider withdrawing some of those terms that are really unacceptable to me as a person and as a member of the government.

The answer to his question is that I am not familiar with the situation that led to the decision taken by the board -- by its resolution, apparently -- to terminate the employment of the administrator. Presumably, such a resolution was passed.

Mr. Farnan: We heard the circumstances. The deputy minister said, prior to the Stoughton report, “I’ll have Robertson’s head on a platter.” I attended a press conference on Friday last in which the Cambridge Academy of Medicine had this to say: “As individuals, we have worked in hundreds of hospitals across Canada. We know that Cambridge Memorial Hospital is, without a doubt, one of the best-managed hospitals in Canada.”

In light of the evidence that has been presented today, knowing that there has been a witchhunt for this man, a personal vendetta, will the Deputy Premier undertake a public inquiry into this termination of the administrator of Cambridge Hospital?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I believe the words used by the honourable member to be untrue. I withdraw that. Let us say unnecessarily inflammatory. I do not believe that what he recounts is factual. It is not my place, but if it were, I would not undertake an investigation into the decision that has been taken by the board to terminate the employment of the administrator.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) is waiting patiently.

Mr. Brandt: How many more administrators have to go?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) allow the member for Markham a new question.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Since the minister has become Minister of Housing of this province, the housing problem has become a very serious crisis, with the vacancy rate at an unacceptable low. We are faced with an increasing number of people on the waiting lists for rent review. We are seeing fewer and fewer people being able to afford to buy a home -- in Metropolitan Toronto less than four per cent.

What assurance can the Minister of Housing give this House that she is really doing something to solve these problems?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am delighted to answer the member for Markham’s question. This government has taken a very significant series of steps to address the problems that people in this province face with regard to housing. One very important step is that we are systematically releasing surplus government land for the purpose of building housing that people can afford in the nonprofit sector; also affordable housing of various sorts. We are building communities that people can be proud to live in.

1430

Let me suggest to the member opposite that there are more resources that could be forthcoming in the way of land. There is a significant amount of land in this province that is owned by the federal government, and the lead that we have given in using our land and releasing it all over the province for the purpose of building affordable housing and increasing the supply of housing that people in this province need would be incredibly more significant if the federal government could be persuaded to join us.

I would suggest that the member opposite and his party are very well placed to speak very clearly to the federal government as well. We are speaking with the federal people very clearly. The member opposite and his caucus are very well placed to join us in that attempt. There is only so much land in the world --

Mr. Reville: How much is there?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: -- and they are not making any more of it.

Mr. Cousens: We are glad to help this government with the federal government in anything that we can do to help provide housing. I happen to know that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. is genuinely interested in solving the problem and is trying to work with all of us. The one point that this minister has not answered --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is time to just pause and quiet things down a bit.

Mr. Cousens: This minister has failed to comment on the failure. If she is really doing everything she can to help with housing, why is it that her ministry underspent its capital budget in 1987-88 by $34 million, or 27.8 per cent? The minister can talk about the other things, and we knew she was going to do it somewhere in the question. Now she should deal with this one: Why is it that the minister is continuing to hold on to that money from last year, $34 million, when she gets letters like this from the executive board of Strathcona Gardens, which is questioning --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has asked the question twice.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: In the agreement that this government signed with the city of Ottawa is a framework for dealing with issues like Strathcona Gardens. In our budget we have $2 billion committed to building 30,000 additional units of nonprofit housing all over the province.

It seems to me extremely important for the member opposite to remember the concerns that he is trying to address. We are using our resources to make sure that nonprofit housing gets built all over the province; we are using our land; we are striking agreements with municipalities in order to create the framework within which those resources are used.

What I find extremely interesting is that the member should feel such concern in this House at this moment, when he was reported in the press not so long ago saying that all our efforts are premature. I would like the member opposite please to clarify that. Are they premature? It seems to me that what we are doing is pushing our agenda forward and making sure that housing is built in the way that will meet the needs of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Reville: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe the Minister of Housing may want to correct the record. She has just said there is $2 billion in her budget. It is not correct, and I do not want the minister to be in the kind of trouble she has been in before.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

DRUG ENFORCEMENT

Mr. McGuinty: My question is for the Solicitor General.

The tragic death of Benji Hayward of North York, who recently died of a drug overdose, has highlighted the serious drug abuse problem faced by families across Ontario. In the Ottawa-Carleton region, illegal use of drugs is on the rise, especially the use of more dangerous drugs such as cocaine, but enforcement is down. A great deal of illegal drug use goes undetected because police simply lack the necessary resources to fight this serious problem.

Could the minister tell the Legislature how much money is currently allocated to drug enforcement and whether she has any plans to increase that amount?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would remind the member for Ottawa South that the ministry is involved in policing, one could say, in two different routes: one is directly, through the Ontario Provincial Police, and the other is indirectly, in its responsibilities for municipal policing. In the case of Ottawa and most large cities, we do not do the direct policing for these areas.

Drugs are fought on many levels, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the import of drugs. With the OPP, we spend roughly $2 million per year in our programs on drug prevention. However, I would stress that with the OPP and with the ministry itself, we recognize that particularly for children the real pressure to prevent drugs has to be in education, and in doing this we lean very heavily and our stress is on community policing. There are many policing programs directed at the community to try to impress these dangerous problems on young people and keep them out of the drug scene.

I would point out, just as an example, one program very much promoted by all police forces, called VIP -- values, influences and peers -- in which the police work in conjunction with schoolteachers and other interested adults in a program for grade-school-aged children. They try to stress with these young people that they must stand firm in their resolve to stay out of drugs and out of other crime influences. Much work is done. This is probably the most important thrust in policing today.

Mr. McGuinty: Is the minister prepared to consider providing municipalities with extra funds specifically to deal with street-level drug abuse?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The ministry does not get involved at all in the priorities of spending within municipal police forces. This is the responsibility of the police commissions, of which the member is well aware. In this area also, we give a per person grant to the municipalities. It is with regard to that the police commissions of the local police forces make their priority decisions on which programs to fund and to what level.

No, we would not be getting directly into providing targeted funds in this, as indeed we do not in any. The one exception to that was a very brief two-year assist to municipalities in getting the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program started, but this was done very much as an exception, as far as targeting money for municipal police forces was concerned.

CFTO LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Deputy Premier. He will be aware that last week my leader and I called for the government to take a stand against union-busting and pull its advertising off CFTO. This Saturday we read in the Toronto Star this quote from Douglas Bassett: “The Premier called me himself to assure me that the government would not be pulling any ads. No one is cancelling, no one is reacting at all. Everything is running smoothly, as usual.”

I wonder whether the Deputy Premier would like to make things run a little less smoothly for this union-buster and pull the government ads.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I did not get a chance to read that report, as a matter of fact, and I think it would be somewhat unwise of me to comment on the matter.

Mr. Reville: I happen to know that the Toronto Star does go to Earl’s Shell Service.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Not Earl’s; we have another publication there.

Mr. Reville: Right. For those who like pictures, obviously. In any event, $204,000 will be spent by the government next month on CFTO ads. One series of ads, Ministry of Agriculture and Food ads, are scheduled to begin on June 27.

Some people at McKim Advertising, which in fact negotiates these ads for the government, indicate that there is an “out” clause -- an o-u-t clause -- that would require a 28-day notice period. Will the Deputy Premier now give that notice period and ensure that the government is not conniving at union busting?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not think it is appropriate for me to say yes in that regard, it is beyond my powers. The honourable member did indicate that there are contracts that have to be fulfilled. He talks about an “out” -- an o-u-t clause -- and I am not familiar with that.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: A point of privilege, the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Reville: I would like to correct the record, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A point of personal explanation then.

Mr. Reville: In my fever I said “June 27.” I should have said July 27. There is plenty of time for the government to withdraw those ads.

1440

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Deputy Premier. It is with respect to the series of events that surround the position of Don Robertson at Cambridge Memorial Hospital and the questions that have been raised already with the Deputy Premier in respect to the request by both opposition parties to have some kind of an inquiry held into the events that led up to his losing his position. I would like to remind the Deputy Premier that this was a hospital which very clearly had a good track record, according to any objective consulting analysis that was taken of that hospital with respect to its operations.

Does the Deputy Premier not find it passing strange that this board has now come to a conclusion, subtly and not so subtly, perhaps, influenced by this government, and that it finally resulted in this man’s losing his job as a result of a deficit which was brought about for no other reason than servicing pressures in that particular hospital?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I have already responded to a previous question, indicating the way the deficit had been handled in the past by building the increased costs into the base and then adding subsequent amounts of money from the previous year. I think the problem the ministry had with the board and administration of that hospital is that they found it impossible to live within their budget. The ministry was no doubt aware of the fact that, like many communities, Cambridge was growing very rapidly, but it was not prepared to automatically provide the money on a continuing basis, on the basis of budget overruns for programs that had not been approved by the ministry and therefore were not part of the ministry’s overall plan of providing service and adequate funding.

Mr. Brandt: Preliminary reports would indicate that all of the hospitals in Ontario that are operating at a deficit are well administered and well run. They have some difficulties in meeting your budget targets, certainly, but they are well administered.

It is interesting to note that with respect to Mr. Robertson, the indications are that he was a highly capable individual who was well regarded by both his peers and the senior administrative team that he worked with. In addition, some two or three weeks ago I had occasion to speak to another hospital administrator, whose name I shall not release in this House for fear some retaliation will be brought against this individual as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: Don’t deny it. The fact of the matter is right in front of you.

I want to tell the Deputy Premier that this hospital administrator, and I will quote him accurately, indicated to me that if Don Robertson’s job cannot be saved and if he is found at fault for the operation of Cambridge Memorial Hospital, then there is no hope for a lot of other hospital administrators in this province. He had nothing but the highest regard and the deepest respect for Mr. Robertson and had worked with that man for years.

How can the Deputy Premier’s government stonewall this issue and not take a look into the circumstances that surrounded this man’s losing his job?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The resolution was passed by the board of the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, and whether or not the honourable member is true in his assertion, that has been echoed by others, that somehow or other the board did not have any responsibility other than that which was dictated to it, I am not aware of that, but I do not believe that to be so.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr. Callahan: I would like to ask the supplementary that I was not able to ask on the last occasion because time ran out. It is directed to the minister responsible for women’s issues. I believe, just by way of background, the minister had replied to my question by indicating that we did in fact own the scripts or the tapes for the sexual assault commercials.

I would like to ask whether or not these announcements or these videos are being shown on TV0ntario and/or cable television?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It was a good initial question, last Thursday I think it was, and it is a good supplementary.

I tell my friend the member for Brampton South that indeed the Ontario women’s directorate of the government of Ontario does have the rights to those commercials. Following upon a suggestion, we have and are currently investigating with TVOntario as to whether or not it would be interested in running those advertisements.

The advertisements are proving to be very effective. Many people across the province have now seen them, and we think TV0ntario might be an appropriate vehicle. Obviously, they are independent and will make the decision as to whether or not they perhaps want to incorporate them into a larger public service initiative on the whole question of sexual assault. My understanding, however, is that according to the guidelines they have for the rebroadcast of this type of material, our material would qualify and so we are going to pursue that.

Mr. Callahan: In light of the fact that these commercials are extremely effective, in light of the amount of money that was spent in producing them and also recognizing the fact that I think all members of the House consider it to be a matter of extreme importance that the message get out to as many people as possible, perhaps the minister might discuss it with his colleague the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and these messages might be made available in some appropriate form for young people in our secondary schools in order that they will approach the entire issue in a different way than adults have in the past.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member is absolutely right. The whole issue of sexual assault is certainly one we have to confront in new ways. In fact, the theme of that campaign is that sexual assault is a crime, and that is very explicit within the materials.

Indeed, I will take up his suggestion. As I understand it, he is suggesting that we initiate discussions with my colleague the Minister of Education and find out whether it would be appropriate to use those materials in the schools. Certainly, we would not have any objection to that.

In another vein, I should point out that following upon the campaign a number of ministries will be getting together to determine where government collectively ought to go on this question.

Mr. Jackson: You won’t listen to the victims, that’s your problem.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I hear my friend the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) shouting across the floor about holding committee hearings. His view is that this House should take a travelling road show around the province so that he and a few of his friends can go on tour during the summer. We have not --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Interjections are out of order and they should be disregarded.

CANADIAN SHIELD SPRING WATER CO. LTD.

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with regard to the investment by the Ontario Centre for Resource Machinery Technology in Canadian Shield Spring Water Co. of Sault Ste. Marie, an investment of exactly $300,000.

Can the minister explain: (1) why the resource technology centre is investing in a bottling company and what kind of resource technology is involved; and (2) why is it investing in this company at the very time that the Ministry of the Environment is investigating and trying to determine what can be done about the fact that the well being used by this company is apparently depleting the water supply of a number of residents in the area and the company is not willing to do anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for the question. I really cannot tell him the details of that particular transaction, but I would be very happy to look into it and report back to him.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE DETACHMENT

Mr. Laughren: I have a petition signed by residents of Onaping Falls and surrounding district concerning the potential closure of the Dowling Ontario Provincial Police detachment station. These people are opposed to the closure. While it is not really in its proper form, I knew you would want to have it anyway, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will check it out.

1450

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 165 persons from Windsor and area, which reads, in part, as follows:

“Fight back if you are against Sunday shopping.”

I have another petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 1,419 persons from the Pickering Shopping Centre, which reads, in part, as follows:

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

I have a third petition, a rather substantial one in term of numbers. It is addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 7,108 persons from southwestern Ontario, and reads, in part, as follows:

“SOS. Save our Sundays.”

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 89 persons from Sacred Heart Parish in Rockwood, Ontario, which reads, in part, as follows:

“We believe that legislative authority regarding Sunday shopping should remain the responsibility of the provincial government, and we do not support the extension of Sunday shopping.”

I too have signed the petition.

I also have one more petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 44 persons from Guelph and area, which reads, in part, as follows:

“We, the undersigned, are opposed to any legislation which would further commercialize Sunday by extending Sunday shopping. We believe legislative authority regarding Sunday shopping should remain the responsibility of the provincial government.”

I too have signed that.

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

Mr. Neumann: I have a petition signed by 127 individuals from the Brantford area. It reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, are salaried retirees who lost our health and welfare benefits as a result of Massey Combines Corp. being placed in receivership. We are petitioning that the appropriate provincial ministry or ministries vigorously investigate and report to all such salaried retirees the propriety of the loss of such benefits, which we had reason to believe were secured and paid-up benefits.”

I add my name to the petition and present it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition signed by 50 residents of the city of Sault Ste. Marie. It reads as follows:

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

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

I have affixed my signature to the petition and support it and hope the government will act on it.

Mrs. Cunningham: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 14 persons from Rowland Hill Ltd. Footwear in London, Ontario, and it reads, in part, as follows:

“How could we ever have placed Ontario in the hands of such weak leadership?”

I have affixed my signature to that one. I have a further petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 1,039 persons from London and area, which reads, in part, as follows:

“I am strongly against opening on Sundays. Sundays are for relaxation and families, not shopping.”

I have signed that as indicated. My final petition is for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and it is signed by 108 persons from the Ontario Street United Church in Clinton, Ontario. It reads, in part, as follows:

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

I have signed it as required.

Mr. Allen: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 52 residents of Hamilton:

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

“Let’s not leave this issue to the municipalities. This is the responsibility of the provincial government. I say no to Sunday openings.”

I have affixed my signature to that petition.

I have another which reads in a similar fashion, but it is signed by the members of Garside Church in Hamilton, who are endorsing the same message. There are 78 signatures on this petition. I have signed this petition also and certainly do support it.

I have as well the following petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We wish to add our voices to the growing concern over Sunday shopping.

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

“We believe the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day. The decision to remain closed and to enforce closings must be made at the provincial level.”

It is signed by 17 residents of Hamilton.

Finally, to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I have the following petition:

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

This is signed on two sheets by three separate signatures, and I have affixed my signature to those petitions as well.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Adams from the standing committee on social development presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 107, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. R. F. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 155, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Insurance.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Those provisions are designed to increase consumer protection regarding automobile insurance and to strengthen the regulatory system governing insurers in Ontario.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 156, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The bill provides that the minimum wage cannot be less than 65 per cent of the previous year’s industrial aggregate average wage for Ontario as published by Statistics Canada.

MORAVIAN TEMPLE CORPORATION ACT

Mr. Reycraft moved first reading of Bill Pr44, An Act to revive Moravian Temple Corporation.

Motion agreed to.

1500

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

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

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Sault Ste. Marie had some more comments to make.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to continue the debate on this bill which has given the province the right to establish Sunday as a working day in retail establishments across Ontario.

Last Thursday, when the debate on this bill was adjourned, I had been commenting about the broad-based opposition to this bill that has been expressed by the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping. This organization includes a wide-ranging group of associations, labour unions and church groups right across this province, and I had listed a number of them.

They have made very serious critiques of the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act, and I think many of their points should be brought to the attention of the public so that we better understand what is implied by this bill that is being introduced by the current government.

One of the most serious areas of concern is the protection of workers against being forced to work on Sunday and being taken away from their families on what has traditionally been a day of rest. In the area of labour protection, they make some very valid points. This government has not realistically addressed the concerns of workers about having to work on Sundays and holidays.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) introduced the Employment Standards Amendment Act to “create new protections for employees of retail business establishments that open Sundays.” Representatives of employers and union and nonunion employees know that the complaint system used under the Employment Standards Act is unworkable for the Sunday shopping issue.

In Ontario today, there are approximately 250,000 retail workers, full-time and part-time, of whom some 20 per cent are unionized. The 50,000 who belong to unions are mainly employed by large retailers. The other 200,000 work largely in retail outlets that have 1 to 20 employees and do not have the same kind of protections that union membership gives the workers in those larger establishments. Experience tells us that, for nonunion, small retail employees, the complaint mechanism is unlikely to be used, and that, even for unionized employees, the complaint mechanism is very unlikely to be successful.

I would like to illustrate some of the problems with the complaint mechanism. They involve the fact that the refusal to work on Sundays, under this legislation, has to be “reasonable.” Bill 114 defines what a referee may consider reasonable and, therefore, what is reasonable for an employment standards officer, a worker or an employer. Some of these definitions really provide the loopholes that ensure that it is virtually impossible to avoid having to go into work on Sunday.

The definition says that it is unreasonable for a union member to refuse work on Sunday if there is a collective agreement that addresses Sunday work, even if that collective agreement does not deal specifically with a set of personal circumstances. Therefore, the protections that might be afforded to nonunion members are not given to union members.

They also state that it is unreasonable to refuse Sunday work if a premium is paid for that work. The Ministry of Labour makes the assumption that family values and personal friendships, fellowship and relaxation have a price; that to refuse time-and-a-half pay to be with a spouse or children demonstrates, in the government’s view, an unreasonable attitude towards the work ethic.

The bill also states that it is unreasonable to refuse Sunday work if another employee has worked; it is unreasonable to refuse to work Sundays if the employee has also refused on previous Sundays; it is unreasonable to refuse Sunday work if the employer claims that an employee is irreplaceable, and it is unreasonable to refuse Sunday work if the employer claims it is an emergency.

Surely it is unreasonable that we would require retail employees to work every Sunday. However, under the conditions listed above, there are hardly any grounds upon which employees can refuse to work and successfully defend themselves at an adjudication of their case. Clearly, these kinds of loopholes leave the employees vulnerable and lacking the power to be able to make the determination that they would like to be with their families and not to work on Sundays.

The presentation from the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping goes into a number of matters which, I am sure, are going to be addressed by further speakers from our party on this very important issue.

One of the situations that was most interesting for me was that when I was with the standing committee on government agencies, we had the opportunity back in March to spend a couple of days at the Massachusetts Legislature. One of the issues we asked about was how they addressed the issue of Sunday shopping. In Massachusetts, they have in their legislation ironclad guarantees that Sunday work is to be voluntary.

There is no such principle in this bill and, in fact, the loopholes in the kind of language I have just indicated in terms of what is defined as unreasonable in refusal to work on Sunday allows that there is no principle of voluntarism at all in terms of Sunday work, but that everyone who is a retail worker will be subject to forced Sunday working.

As well, in Massachusetts anyone who works on Sunday is guaranteed and fully paid a 50 per cent premium on the regular wages. That indicates the kind of penalty employers are subject to when they make the decision to operate on Sundays. If an employer in a retail firm decides he wants to operate on Sunday, he should have to pay a major premium to his employees.

Certainly, if the kinds of factors that they have in Massachusetts were included in the legislation here in Ontario, we would probably have a very different reaction to this bill from the employees of that sector of our economy today.

At this time, I would like to conclude by saying I look forward to the hearings that are going to take place on this issue. I would welcome individuals across the province to come out to those hearings as they go to the various communities in Ontario. I expect to be a part of at least some of those hearings, and I would think that if this government is sensitive at all to the serious concerns of the workers of this province and the concerns of others who have put a high value on the need for a day of rest when, as much as possible, families are allowed to be together, we will see the most significant fight this government has seen on any piece of legislation it has introduced yet in this session.

I will look forward to that debate and I will look forward, hopefully, to this government coming to its senses and withdrawing this piece of legislation.

1510

Mr. Runciman: I want to put a few comments on the record in respect to this legislation. I would like to respond briefly to something that the government whip, the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), mentioned last week. In one of the two-minute responses to a speaker, he made reference to the fact that quite a number of Ontarians are currently working on Sundays and that he had difficulty understanding the concerns of the opposition parties and others in this province with respect to the negative impact this legislation could have on the quality of life in the province.

I have to assume, based on his comments, that he is one who has not had to work on many Sundays during his working life. No doubt there are a great many people working on Sundays, but they are not working by choice; they are working on Sundays simply because they are required to, because their occupation, profession, place of employment, what have you, requires them to work on Sundays. If they had their druthers, obviously they would be at home with their families.

As one who did work for a considerable number of years on shift work and had to work Sundays during the better part of the growing years of my children, I can tell you quite clearly that missing those opportunities to be home on weekends with your children during their formative years is certainly something I and my family have suffered for, as have countless thousands of other Ontarians.

To suggest that because some in our society are required to work on Sundays, it is OK for the rest of the people; for this government to, in effect, mandate and in some instances in a very indirect fashion require those in the retail sector especially to work on Sundays because others are doing it, is simply a comment that is nothing less than off the wall from someone who obviously has not had that experience in his own life and cannot appreciate the impact it has on one’s relationship with family and friends.

It was mentioned last week as well, when we were talking about eastern Ontario -- Mr. Speaker, you will be familiar with this -- that the mayor of Cornwall, who attempted to secure the Liberal nomination prior to the last provincial election and was unsuccessful, has taken up the torch, if you will, in that community in leading the fight against Sunday shopping. I found it interesting, because in my own community the Liberal candidate who ran against me, Jim Jordan, a retired director of the separate school system in Leeds-Grenville, has also taken on the challenge of heading up the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping organization in my area and, I understand, is doing a fine job.

It is interesting that we have these individuals who had ambitions to become candidates for the Liberal Party taking very public positions in opposition to this government’s initiative with respect to Sunday shopping. Some of the members who were fortunate and indeed gained seats in this Legislature are not taking similar stands. I guess we have talked about ambition in the past and the fact that they all hold out hopes and aspirations that at some point in the distant future -- perhaps, in some instances, not-too-distant future -- they will gain entry to the executive council.

I want to indicate that they have only three years in which to do that. Based on their current performance to date, they are not going to be returning to office three years from now. They are offending a great deal of the electorate; with their budget, this kind of initiative and others they are taking, they are simply not going to be around to gain office again three years from now. So they should take an independent stand, follow the lead of the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson), who, on a regular basis, stands up and expresses views that are reflective of the people of his riding.

He is not simply here to act as a rubber stamp or to endorse what the three or four key players in the front bench tell him to endorse, unlike the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), who, two weeks prior to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) making his announcement -- she has heard this ad nauseam, I am sure, but we are going to continue to remind her -- stood up and said this kind of legislation would not be appropriate, it was “the chicken way out,” to use her phrase. A couple of weeks later, the Premier surprised her. Not just her: I gather the bulk of his cabinet colleagues as well as his caucus.

Shades of days gone by. We were told this new government was going to be a consultative government and certainly would not be making decisions based on the reflections of one individual, who let the party or his coffee club or a clutch of advisers --

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Remember Bette Stephenson and the amendment regarding separate schools.

Mr. Runciman: That is what I am saying; shades of days gone by. We could say déjà vu. We thought this was a whole new broom; we were going to see all sorts of things occurring in a different fashion, but that has not been the case in this instance, where the Premier had the effrontery to come up with a radically different prescription than his own Solicitor General.

She, as a member of the select committee on retail store hours, supported the common pause day concept. She had it thrown in her face by the Premier. Regrettably, she did not stand up to that challenge. I have suggested why she may not have. She is in a rather comfortable pew. She has all of the perks that go along with that position, as well as some influence, indeed, in other areas related to her portfolio. Obviously, her influence is somewhat diminished based on what has transpired in this instance, but we would assume that with the title goes some influence in respect to decisions made within that ministry.

Obviously, the minister has suffered some embarrassment and it has had an impact in her own community. We saw that, of course, in the by-election in London North, where this issue was a major bone of contention and had an impact. We even saw, in the London Free Press on Wednesday, June 8, that the Solicitor General has now gotten herself into a feud with the mayor. She is advising the mayor to go home and look after his baby instead of being concerned about this issue which is going to have a major impact in municipalities across this province.

The Solicitor General had the effrontery herself -- I could use a different word, but I am going to be procedurally correct today -- to say: “Go home and look after your baby. Don’t bother yourself with this sort of thing.” What does the mayor say to that? The mayor of London, the home town of the Solicitor General, said: “The government is being dishonest. I have said publicly all along that the municipal option is dishonest. If pressure comes from the townships, London will have to open to protect its tax base.”

Interjection.

Mr. Runciman: The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) is saying that the mayor has not read the bill. It is a slap in the face to the mayor of London to suggest that he has taken this position without even reading the bill. I have more confidence in the mayor and his abilities than to suggest what the minister has suggested. It is on the record: the minister has suggested that the mayor of the city of London had not read the bill before he expressed his concern. We will make sure he is aware of the minister’s views on the subject. We will make sure he receives a copy of Hansard.

Further, the mayor of London says, “Ontario municipalities are unanimously opposed to the local option and are offering to sit down with the province to come up with a workable solution in defining the so-called tourist exemption.”

I wish him luck. We talk about consultation. Of course, the Premier and the Solicitor General have talked about consultation on a number of occasions, but the proof is in the pudding, and CAOSS, the umbrella group for the opponents of this legislation, has been refused an audience with the Premier.

On March 21, CAOSS sent a letter -- and the Solicitor General received a copy of it -- requesting a meeting with the Premier; but the Premier did not even give the courtesy of a reply. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? A significant group which involves a great number of supporters of his own party, some aspirants for candidacy for his party, the Liberal Party of Ontario in the last provincial election, and the Premier will not even give them the courtesy of a reply, let alone a hearing.

1520

The Premier’s only movement to this date has been a computerized form letter, and that is in response to an earlier letter from CAOSS dated February 10. In the form letter, he stated: “No new legislation has been introduced as yet, and we are currently consulting with a number of groups on this important subject. Please be assured your views will receive my careful consideration.”

We are all asking: Whom did they consult and how does total evasion constitute careful consideration? If the Liberals have an open and consultative government, what is a closed one? As CAOSS has noted, the government’s listening skills are severely underdeveloped on the Sunday shopping issue.

We know they have received about 70,000 petitions against Sunday shopping through our office alone. We do not know how many they have received through members of their own party or through the official opposition and through other sources, but we know that they are certainly significant.

Despite that, the government is determined and dogmatic -- it cannot be described in any other fashion -- about its decision to inflict its own prejudices, or at least its leader’s prejudices, and injustices upon the people it has refused to meet with and discuss this issue with.

I want to talk a bit about the lack of consultation, as well, in respect to some of the amendments that the minister and the government have introduced which fly in the face of a number of earlier promises of the Liberal Party and government. I would like, for the record, to review some of those promises.

In opposition the Liberals were against expanded Sunday shopping. During the 1985 election campaign, and up to November 1985, the Premier stated categorically that the Liberal government would not abandon the common pause day. In December 1986 the Liberals said they felt the current laws should be upheld.

In January 1987, although Sunday shopping had already been analysed by the Progressive Conservative task force, the Liberals sent the issue to a standing committee of the Legislature for study. The committee issued its report in May 1987. The Solicitor General sat on that committee. It recommended that Sunday be maintained as a common pause day and rejected the notion of a wide-open Sunday for the harm that would incur on family life and recreational pursuits. That was an all-party committee.

In November 1987, as I mentioned earlier, the Solicitor General made her infamous comment that the municipal option would be the chicken way out.

So what have the Liberals done? They have changed their tactics and reasoning entirely and have decided that their previous promises and commitments were unimportant. They have refused to accept responsibility in resolving the Sunday shopping issue and have, as the Solicitor General suggested, taken the chicken way out.

What compelling factors caused the Premier to change his mind? So far there is no clear explanation. It appears to be a classic case of the Premier’s absolving himself of responsibility for controlling a sticky situation, one which, historically, has fallen under provincial jurisdiction.

We will never know, perhaps, just how the Premier arrived at that decision or who the significant influencing force or forces were in respect to him arriving at that decision. I really do not know. He did not talk to anyone, obviously, or to very few people. He obviously did not confer with his cabinet, his Solicitor General or his caucus in arriving at the decision.

Perhaps we will never know, unlike another decision made by a previous Premier referred to by one of the back-benchers for the government. We thought that times had changed, but obviously we are still dealing with an individual who wants to make decisions in a rather authoritarian manner.

I want to talk briefly about some of the arguments against Sunday shopping, and there are all kinds of them and I could probably go on at length, but I know other members want to have an opportunity at least to put some views on record. I know my friend the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) has been patiently waiting in here day after day to give her differing views. Maybe I should keep on talking, as a matter of fact. No, I will not do that to the member. I will be a few more minutes, though.

I want to put on the record at least a number of the arguments against Sunday shopping. Hopefully, I will not be running over a lot of ground that has been mentioned before.

We have obviously been talking about the quality of life being impaired, something that the government whip takes issue with without having experienced the same kinds of problems himself, I suspect.

With this legislation, many parents will need to work. Particularly difficult situations will arise for single parents who work in the retail sector, more than half of whom are women. They will have lost their only day to be with their children, and some will have to find and pay for additional day care services. Not only is this bad for parents, but an increased incidence of latchkey kids will also further weaken the quality of life for children in Ontario.

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

It is unconscionable for the Ministry of Labour to assume that personal friendships and family values have a price. It is completely unfair and unreasonable for the government to assume that a worker’s refusal of overtime pay to be with a spouse or children represents an unreasonable attitude towards the work ethic.

The proposed legislation denies workable protection for retail employees who want to spend time with their families on Sundays, particularly the most vulnerable, single-parent mothers and fathers, and it obliterates freedom of choice for all retail workers. The complaint mechanism in the bill we will talking about later, Bill 114, the independent referee, will largely be blackballed as nonunion and small retail employees will most likely be intimidated by the mediation processes set out in the bill.

The rights of workers have always remained at the provincial level to ensure that workers across the province can share and have equal access to the same rights. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) appears to agree with this principle in the district court of Ontario, but not in the Legislature.

If the government believes that legislation regarding Sunday work is a municipal responsibility, will it pass off other labour legislation, such as the minimum wage, pay equity and workers’ compensation, to municipalities? We wonder.

One final comment: The 675-member Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as we all know, is vehemently opposed to the local option. It has passed a resolution against the local option on the grounds that it does not make sense not to have a provincial standard on the common pause day, with appropriate exceptions.

In a brief response last week to one of the members of the official opposition, I railed against a number of things, as I am wont to do on occasion. I talked about this being essentially, as we have said in this party and I think the official opposition has said as well, an antifamily piece of legislation. I have stressed that this is a theme that runs throughout a number of pieces of legislation that this government and its predecessor government, in alliance with the NDP, introduced and passed.

1530

I especially mentioned Bill 7, the amendment to the Human Rights Code last year and the sexual orientation provisions in that code. When I mentioned that in a rather speedy fashion, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) took exception to it and made some rather unparliamentary remarks, which I gather were not picked up by Hansard, thank goodness. But he obviously felt quite strongly about it. I want to tell members that I have no apologies to make in respect of those comments and the belief I have.

I suspect all the current sitting members of this caucus, those of us who were fortunate enough to be re-elected, opposed that particular amendment, as members may recall. I am sure a significant number of members of the Liberal ranks also felt so inclined, but for a variety of reasons that I will not go on at length about, decided either to vote with their leader or to stay out of the House on that day.

There was no question in my mind and in the mind of many of my colleagues that the bill represented a significant slap in the face to family values in this province. I felt it was quite appropriate to raise it as part of a continuing theme in terms of initiatives of this government. Obviously, members on the opposite side are going to have some difficulty with that.

Another one that I raised -- and it has not been raised in this House, but it has been raised in a column; I have seen it in one column by Eric Dowd, who does a column out of Queen’s Park -- was the comments of the Premier to students in northern Ontario. He has been applauded by the Toronto Star for those comments as being mature and being the first Premier who is not concerned about saying that magic word “sex.”

Mr. Ballinger: All across the province.

Mr. Runciman: I do not know about all across the province. One of the members suggests that the Premier is being applauded all across the province. I want him to know that the feedback I received was very much negative. I know times they are a-changing, but I am not sure they have changed to that degree and I am not sure I would want to see them changed to that degree.

If the Premier himself had indicated, “Look, I was caught off guard and my response was one I would like to expand upon in respect to the conduct of children” -- I think they were grade 7 students sitting in that group, according to press reports. In any event, I think it continues along the theme in terms of the views of the key players in that government, especially the four or five people on the front benches, the people I like to describe as social engineers who want to have a significant impact over the next few years on the way we in this province feel about ourselves and the way we feel about family.

In conclusion, I want to repeat something I said during the Bill 7 debate and something that reflects, in terms of the initiative of Bill 7, the initiative on the comments of the Premier and a number of other things that have happened or are occurring as a result of initiatives by this government.

Comment is appropriate in respect to the legislation on Sunday shopping, and that is that supporters, when we take a look at the bigger social picture, have as their goal to reshape what we in this province are into something we are not. They repudiate virtually all of the values out of which this country has emerged. They debunk our religion and undermine our families. I am proud to be a part of a party that is opposing this legislation.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I just want to clarify this municipal option matter because I think it is important to understand it. Indeed, I do accept that I did not understand the legal implications of trying to define tourism. I have said this before, as the member has made his accusation before, but I would want to explain again that the select committee and I myself, as a member of it and later as a member of this House, did not understand the legal difficulties of defining “tourism” in a way that be meaningful in the courts. That was a problem.

Having faced that problem, which I did, it became apparent that since we could not control Sunday shopping in one way, either we had to go the Alberta route of simply saying, “We will just leave it all open and you do with it what you can in the municipalities,” or we had to do as we did and give the municipalities a very good provincial framework which they can use and a way in which they can enforce it well. This was the option.

I think we worked hard on making the bill do that. We did consult very widely in doing so. We consulted with many different groups and certainly with our own caucus. They are quite satisfied that we did consult with them. That is why, by and large, I find them very supportive of the bill.

We did what was possible to make a law that was enforceable, flexible enough to allow for tourism where it was needed; and controlled enough that municipalities can have control, if they want, as they ask in so many other areas.

Furthermore, just very briefly, we did not hand down the worker protection to municipalities, as the member suggested. That is a provincial bill, as is other worker protection, and we left it with the province.

Mr. McCague: I know that anything I have to say is supposed to be directed squarely at the remarks made by the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman). I might just sidestep that a little bit, but maybe the member, in winding up, would ask a couple of questions of the Solicitor General.

Mr. Mahoney: Nice suit.

Mr. McCague: I thank the member very much.

The Solicitor General in her remarks just a few moments ago would have us think that the reason for the bill she has before us was that she was having great problems with the tourist exemption. Maybe the member could check that out. I do not believe that for a moment. It is one of the things that I think she is using -- and that is her right -- to help sell an ill-conceived proposal.

I am not sure what happened to the minister. There was a time when the caucus of the Liberal Party here in this Legislature was completely split on whether or not this was good legislation, but we have had only one member so far get up and speak in any kind of terms that would indicate he might be wavering on whether or not he should vote for the bill or absent himself from this House. I cannot quite understand what happened, unless the chief government whip was really out there whipping them, but they sure have fallen into line. If the kind of job he is doing is judged on whether or not he can whip them into line, he deserves five stars.

Ms. Poole: I too will address my comments to what the member for Leeds-Grenville has said. He has once again brought up the family and he has implied that this government is not committed to quality of life for the family. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like specifically to refer to his comments about the Premier. The member for Leeds-Grenville brought up the Premier’s comments when he was speaking to students in northern Ontario. As the mother of a 13-year-old son, these comments struck very close to home, because I have very strong moral values which I impart to my children, but I also am very forthright with them. When they ask questions, I respect their intelligence enough that I give them honest answers. I think people across this province did applaud our Premier when he stood up and gave forthright answers.

Quite frankly, I say to any parent in this room or any parent in this province, if they are going to stand up to children and teenagers and say, “No, you should not have sex under any circumstances,” while it might be something you feel in your heart would be desirable, it is not going to happen, and they are going to lose all their credibility in pursuing that avenue. I think the Premier was forthright. He specifically was addressing the topic of AIDS, and I do not think he was in any way derogating from family life by the comments he made.

1540

I do support this Sunday shopping legislation. I do not feel it is going to depart from family life and I feel the Premier’s comments were in keeping with our government’s commitment to the family in this province.

Mr. Ballinger: I would like to pass on some comment to the member for Leeds-Grenville, as it relates to the proposed bill. As one of the new members of the back bench -- the opposition always feels we sit over here like a bunch of trained seals and do not have opinions or minds of our own -- I would like to make this point to the honourable member, that this piece of legislation, in my opinion, has been a long time coming.

My background is municipal. It is really interesting for me in my riding to speak with some of the municipal councillors and the mayors who say they like it; however, they are certainly not going to say that publicly. In fact, they think it has been a long time coming as well.

If we have made any one mistake, I guess, it happens to be an election year from a municipal point of view --

Mr. McCague: That doesn’t mean it is right.

Mr. Ballinger: I just happen to think that it is right and that is why I am standing here and why I am speaking to the specific speech made by the member from Leeds-Grenville.

One thing that has concerned me most of all is the attitude of the opposition, which has utilized the fear technique of trying to convince everyone that there is a bogyman out there they should all be afraid of. Quite honestly, that bogyman is just not in this act at all.

They have utilised all kinds of examples. The opposition is always talking about the domino effect. I understand and respect the role of opposition; they are supposed to be opposed. However, this specific piece of legislation is very objective, I think. It address the needs of Ontario, and I am more than quite pleased to stand up here publicly and support Bill 113.

Mr. Runciman: I will make a few brief comments. The member for Eglinton indicated that the Premier’s comments in respect to the high school speech he made were forthright. I do not doubt at all they were forthright and I do not question her moral values at all, but I think the Premier’s comments were ill-thought-out and if he had an opportunity to do it again, he himself would expand upon his views. I like to think he would, in any event.

The member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) talks about the opposition parties using fear techniques. I want to say I do not believe we are, but if any party is an expert in respect to fear techniques, it is the Liberal Party of Ontario. We just have to reflect back upon the election of 1987, when the Premier ran across the province trying to scare the bejabers out of every citizen of this province in respect to free trade -- trying to scare the farmers, trying to scare the industrial workers, trying to scare everyone. Those guys are experts at fear tactics; there is no question about it.

The Solicitor General said she made this decision because of the definition problems in respect to tourism. I find that I have a lot of difficulty with that. She made a decision, in effect, to swallow her pride on this whole matter. She is saying it was a problem with the tourism definition, but she was surprised by the Premier. She was totally surprised by the Premier, as was the caucus.

Mr. Ballinger: That is an assumption.

Mr. Runciman: That is not an assumption. She said two weeks beforehand, “This is a chicken way out,” and now she is trying to tell us that it was a problem with the definition of tourism. That is just too much for this group to buy.

Mr. Chiarelli: I am happy to enter this debate on Bill 113, the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act, the so-called wide-open Sunday shopping bill.

This bill has absolutely nothing to do with wide-open Sunday shopping. What it will do is bring order where none exists, make enforceable a law that is now unenforceable and restore the rule of law where the law is now being flagrantly abused.

Over the past two years there has been much thoughtful debate on this issue in committee, in the House and across the province, but I think some of the less thoughtful debate is now in the full bloom of exposure. I believe even some of the opposition recognize that their polemic of saying this bill promotes wide-open Sunday shopping is a distortion which has enabled opposition members to come out shooting from the lip and to move straightforwardly into dodging the real issues.

I want to say from the outset that I am personally opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping, and I am particularly opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping in the Ottawa-Carleton region. I am fully confident that the Ottawa-Carleton area, for one, will not see wide-open Sunday shopping under Bill 113.

There exists in our region the Eastern Ontario Coalition Against Wide-Open Sunday Shopping, which has been co-chaired by Ottawa alderman Mac Harb and Ottawa businesswoman Sue LeBrun.

I have had regular and ongoing dialogue with this committee of outstanding representatives from my community and I am pleased to say that these fellow citizens embarked upon their task in as nonpolitical, nonpartisan and professional a manner as one could expect under the circumstances. They were truly looking for solutions to this difficult problem.

The coalition arranged a meeting with myself and other area MPPs to discuss the issue of retail business holidays and store hours. I believe the coalition members left the meeting with a truer understanding of the very real difficulties under the old legislation.

An Ottawa area example illustrates one major loophole of the old law, and I would like to go through it. As some honourable members may know, Ottawa has a traditional and historic market area just northeast of Confederation Square. For a number of years, this area has been designated a tourist area and has been successfully open for business on Sundays, with wide public approval.

However, on the west side of Confederation Square, Ottawa is blessed with the mile-long Sparks Street pedestrian mall. Under the old legislation, the municipality could very legitimately decide to declare it a tourism area, which it surely is most of the year, particularly in view of the fact that it is a block from Parliament Hill.

Still again, those members of this House familiar with Ottawa will know that Bank Street bisects the Sparks Street mall and terminates at Parliament Hill. The Bank Street merchants’ association has in recent years completed an outstanding project of revitalizing the street for an extended number of blocks. Bank Street is host to a tremendous number of tourists to the national capital area every year.

Under the old legislation, the municipality could very well designate not only the present market area as open for Sunday shopping but also the Sparks Street mall, Bank Street and, I might add, the downtown Rideau Centre complex as well. Under the old law, virtually all of downtown Ottawa could legally be declared open for shopping on Sundays.

The bottom line of advice of the eastern Ontario coalition members was that any proposed legislation should be applied on a regional basis, where regional governments exist. I was happy to make representations to the Solicitor General in this regard, as many of my colleagues did. The minister has taken this advice, so in our case the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton will have the delegated authority to deal with retail holidays. I am happy to say there is an overwhelming consensus in the Ottawa-Carleton area to prohibit wide-open Sunday shopping, and this can be done effectively through our regional government.

Particularly for the previous speaker, the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), who referred to the mayor of Cornwall, who is active with the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping, I refer to our mayor in Ottawa. Jim Durrell has stated, “It is better that municipalities be able to decide on their own rather than have a decision imposed on them by the province.”

If the mayor of Ottawa is not sufficient for the honourable member, I would like to quote from an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen. The member for Leeds-Grenville is a great one at quoting editorials and comments. I quote, “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.”

1550

The regional chairman for the Ottawa-Carleton area, Andy Haydon, is on record as saying that delegation of this matter to regional municipalities is a reasonable way to deal with the issue and that he expects Ottawa-Carleton to maintain a shopping ban in all 11 area municipalities, and that is under the proposed new legislation.

Outside of Ottawa-Carleton, Mayor John Gerretsen of Kingston said he would welcome the opportunity for local municipalities to set their own rules to ban or not ban Sunday shopping. If I may quote, “I feel that some things that are good for Kingston may not be good for Toronto and vice versa.”

Ottawa-Carleton is the second largest and, other than Metro, the fastest-growing municipality in the province. I believe the leaders of my community understand the fine points of Bill 113 and, although they remain staunchly opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping, they also feel comfortable controlling their own holiday shopping under this legislation.

While Ottawa-Carleton is opposed to extending Sunday shopping, I believe we should respect other communities, as the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) has indicated, such as Bayfield and Port Stanley, towns along the edge of our Great Lakes, which have developed streets of small boutiques which open on Sunday, quite legally, because their local governments, under presently delegated law, chose to allow this.

In eastern Ontario, Gananoque has declared itself a tourist area. Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay have all developed local bylaw solutions to Sunday openings. I think it is about time the opposition parties started to show some respect for municipal councillors. While many councillors, for their own varied, legitimate reasons, may prefer not to have the local option, many members of the public are getting just a little tired of opposition innuendoes that local councils cannot be trusted with the responsibility; that somehow they will be corrupted by big business or that they will not act in the best interests of their electors.

I take particular exception to statements made a couple of days ago by a member of the third party who indicated that Bill 113 and Bill 114 were too complex for rural councillors to deal with. Since rural councillors deal with the Planning Act, the Municipal Act and the Assessment Act, three of the most complex statutes one might deal with, I find that member’s comments particularly irrelevant and patronizing.

I believe that the local councillors who approved Sunday shopping in Ottawa’s Byward Market, in Bayfield, in Port Stanley, in Gananoque, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay have as much respect for a day of pause and for religious observance as any members opposite.

I also believe that councillors across the province appreciate the fact that this government has had the strength of purpose to put teeth into the law, so that, whatever the preferences of the community may be, at least they will be enforceable. In particular, where a community chooses to keep a common pause day, this legislation, among other things, increases possible fines and permits injunctive powers for the courts to order stores to close, a significant improvement over the old legislation.

The problem with this debate is that the opposition parties invested all their political capital in opposing a bill before they even saw it. They are now left to fill the air with speeches and to fill their speeches with air. They are giving us in length what they lack in depth. As the Ottawa Citizen stated in an editorial on April 23, 1988, “The only thing that vaguely resembles an NDP or Tory policy on Sunday shopping is the notion that there should be public hearings on the issue.”

We all appreciate responsible debate on this issue. To quote from a letter I received from Ottawa alderman Mac Harb, co-chairman of the Eastern Ontario Coalition Against Wide-Open Sunday Shopping: “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.

We expect that sooner or later these bills will be sent to the standing committee on administration of justice for public input and detailed review. As a member of that committee, I look forward to constructive suggestions and debate by all parties and members of the public, to the end that the bills will indeed be fair and enforceable and will appropriately address the economic and cultural needs of all the people of Ontario.

Mr. Mackenzie: I trust that the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) has his health insurance paid up to date. I can warn him that even a good dancer, when he tries to straddle a fence the way he has done, can sometimes slip, and he could end up with one heck of a hernia in a situation like that. I am always suspicious of somebody who says, “The opposition is all wrong” and “I oppose wide-open Sunday shopping but I am supporting this bill.”

I would like to know from him whether Ottawa -- and it may be; this one is a legitimate question -- was one of the three municipalities of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that voted in favour of transferring the right to the municipalities. As I recall it, the vote was something like -- I do not have the pro vote -- about 40 or 50 to three against this particular legislation. It would be interesting to know if his city was one of the three that voted this way at the AMO.

It also seems, when it comes to the hearings he is now so solidly in favour of, that it took a bit of a filibuster and a number of days of reading petitions into the record before we got it agreed in this House. So it seems to me that there is a little bit of phoney protest in the kind of comments I have heard here today.

Ms. Bryden: I also think it is rather late to be taking pride in the fact that we are going to have public hearings. Public hearings were forced on the government by continued demands for them. Reading petitions was the only resource we had.

However, I do also want to deal with his argument that it is going to be a great thing for each municipality to make its own decision on this. Does the member realize that the government is loading on to the municipalities, particularly the larger ones, a level of work in administering this act that will tie up those municipalities for the next two years?

They will have to draft legislation equivalent to the Retail Business Holidays Act. They will have to decide which exemptions should be allowed. They will have endless requests for public hearings on that legislation when it comes up. They will have endless delegations saying, “We want to be exempted but we don’t want some other group exempted.” They will have all sorts of suggestions as to whether there should be modifications of hours of opening or of the rules for the size of store or retail establishment that can be covered.

I can see every municipality being tied up with committee hearings and public hearings on this. It will be at least two years before most of them have their legislation sorted out and, in the meantime, presumably wide-open Sunday shopping will go on because there will no restriction on it at the municipal level. By that time, you have given away the store in more ways than one. What the member is really not facing up to is the fact that perhaps Ottawa-Carleton will turn it down -- we do not know -- but others will have great difficulty in implementing it.

Mr. McCague: I would like to compliment the member for Ottawa West on being able to rationalize what he was not able to rationalize in the first instance: why he was in favour of the government’s bill. The member should know that what has happened here is that we have a government which has decided to impose a bill on this province.

Whether the member agrees or disagrees with the bill, or I agree or disagree with it, really does not matter all that much. What we on this side of the House are doing is listening to our constituents. The members over there are listening to nobody -- absolutely nobody. Surveys were done before this bill even appeared on the surface. The government kept saying, “Why don’t you wait until you know what is in the bill?”

1600

We took all kinds of surveys and sent out newsletters and so forth. I think that my riding would be typical of a lot of the ridings in the province, and about 67 per cent of the people were opposed to Sunday shopping. Now, the government tries to get around that by saying that it too is opposed to Sunday shopping. The municipalities did not want this imposed on them. There were not a lot of problems out there. There were some problems, but there were not a lot of problems.

Mr. Faubert: Lots of problems.

Mr. McCague: I am not sure of the member’s profession, but if he thinks that this bill has no problems, if he thinks the legal profession in this province is not going to find flaws in this bill, he is dreaming. There has not been a bill passed in this House yet that the lawyers could not find a way around, except the abolition of the Queen’s counsels.

Mr. Dietsch: Let me begin by complimenting the member on his presentation here this afternoon. I feel that the member has done well to put the legislation in its proper context. I have listened intently over the last several days to members opposite trying to put forward their views, really in terms of trying to confuse the general public. Anyone who believes that this Legislature was held to ransom for public hearings on this bill should shake himself, because he is in a bad dream. I think it was part of the normal process that was going to be put forward.

For members opposite to try to take advantage of this type of a situation, to use it for their fund-raising, if you will, as I noticed in Lorrie Goldstein’s column, to try to confuse the public -- but it is all right to try to use it in part of a fund-raising letter to earn money to build up the coffers. I think the member for Ottawa West has put the issue well. It just goes to show that albeit this House has bodies in it, they are not necessarily listening to some of the debate that goes on.

This bill is not being imposed on municipalities. It is an opportunity for municipalities to deal with their own futures, and as a municipal politician of many years, I can appreciate that. The legislation that was earlier discussed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario certainly was done long before this bill was put on the table, and I am sure if we have an opportunity to hear what AMO will say about it, which we will over the summer --

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

Mr. Dietsch: I compliment the member on his presentation.

Mr. Chiarelli: The member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) raises the question of the legal profession and what it might do with particular legislation. First of all, there is a saying in the legal profession that you do not leap before the stile; in other words, you do not jump before you get to the gate.

What the opposition members have done is raise a lot of fear and take very strong positions before they even saw the bill. Now they cannot back off. They have to keep the fight up to the extent they did before they even saw it.

Second, the member raises a question of lawyers playing with the proposed legislation. I do not think anything could approach what they are doing with the existing legislation. He did not listen to me when I talked about the Ottawa example where, by choice, they have decided to open the Byward Market on Sundays. But under the existing legislation, all of downtown Ottawa could be opened up. What we have done now is create a law that is enforceable so that if we want to restrict it to the Byward Market, we can do it and do it effectively.

If I can refer to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), she is saying that her party forced us, basically, to go to public hearings. It has always been my understanding that these twin bills would be going to committee, they would be debated and the public would have a full opportunity to participate in the process. On that point, I would like to wind up.

Mrs. Grier: Let me start by saying very clearly to the member for Ottawa West that I had strong feelings in opposition to this legislation before I saw the actual bills. Having seen the bills, those strong feelings became even stronger. So let him be under no illusions as to the strength of the conviction on this side of the House with respect to the whole issue of Sunday shopping and Sunday working changing the pattern of life in Ontario.

There are often issues on which a member may feel very strongly but on which one’s constituents do not feel quite so strongly. There are occasions when one’s constituents, or groups thereof, have very deeply held feelings and a member, as a representative, is not quite sure that they are right. It is with great pleasure that I can say that on this particular issue I am absolutely confident that in opposing the legislation now before us I represent the vast majority of the constituents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

I say that with the confidence I do, having received more letters in opposition to this legislation than I think I have had on any other subject in the time I have been in this House; having received petitions signed by almost all of the churches in my constituency; having received representations from workers, organized and unorganized, and from members of the general public, who, on the subject of whether or not they want to see the city of Etobicoke given the right to legislate Sunday shopping, are very clearly opposed to that.

On my cable television show, I invited members of the public to phone in and give their views on what they heard when the facts were presented to them. By 90 per cent to 10 per cent they were opposed to the legislation as it now stands and were opposed to the expansion of the local option. I say to the members who say that the municipalities already have that power: If they have that power, why are we introducing this legislation? Really, members cannot have it both ways.

Another interesting aspect of this whole debate has been those people who when asked, “Are you in favour of Sunday shopping?” may perhaps respond: “Yes, I think it would be great to able to shop on Sundays. I work every other day. I would like to take my family shopping on Sunday.” When you begin to explain that the people who will end up working on Sundays are not just those in the retail trade, but those who service the retail trade, those who provide the transportation for the shoppers and for the employees, those who are perhaps contractors who remove the snow from the parking lots of the retail shopping plazas -- it is not just those who are selling who are going to be working; it is a vast number of the citizens of this province -- people who might have thought off the top of their heads that it was a very good idea to be open on Sundays begin to think of the implications and the ripple effect of this legislation and realize that is not the kind of Ontario they want.

We have heard much in this debate about giving the power to the municipalities. I too was a municipal representative for a very long time. I cannot count the number of occasions on which my municipality and other municipalities have asked the provincial government for some greater power to do something, greater jurisdiction over some particular issue or not to need special legislation every time we wanted to write some special kind of bylaw. All of those requests fall on deaf ears.

Here we have something the municipalities have said very clearly is a power they do not want transferred to them, and what do we have?

Mr. Mackenzie: It’s called a copout.

Mrs. Grier: We have a copout, as the member says. We have a passing of the buck back to the municipalities, a buck that the municipalities do not want, a headache that the municipalities have said they do not want and an incredible job of enforcement that the municipalities are not equipped to do.

We hear from the members opposite that there are going to be public hearings. I would like to hear from the members opposite. If at those public hearings they are once again told by churches, by citizens, by unions, by municipalities that this legislation is unacceptable and that those people who come to the public hearings do not want to see this legislation passed, are they then going to change their mind?

1610

There is all this talk about listening to the people and how the government has the ear of the people. That will be the test. After those public hearings are over, and I am quite confident the message received by that committee is going to be that people do not want a wide-open Sunday in Ontario, is the government going to withdraw this legislation? Are we going to see how responsive this majority government is then to the people of the province? That is going to be the test.

In my municipality of Etobicoke we went through a three-month Ontario Municipal Board hearing that became known in the Toronto press as “Store Wars”, when Cadillac Fairview wanted zoning and official plan amendments to enable it to open a massive shopping centre in the northern part of Etobicoke, the Woodbine centre. It is there, it is built and it is, as its opponents feared, sucking trade from all the other smaller plazas for a very wide radius around.

I mention that because it was a typical example of the kind of domino effect that we are going to find with this legislation. Mississauga had Square One and Yorkdale was expanding, and so, lo and behold, developers in Etobicoke felt, “Well, we have to have a large, regional plaza in northern Etobicoke.” The smaller plazas said: “We do not want to see another major plaza. There is not enough trade to go around. It will hurt the retail shopping strips.” But no, because one municipality had a large regional plaza, another municipality had to have one.

I think that is exactly the kind of pattern we are going to see when it comes to Sunday shopping. It is absolute folly to say that Metropolitan Toronto will be open and Mississauga will have the right to stay shut; and how much worse it is going to be outside the Golden Horseshoe area where we get into small municipalities that have a shopping centre in the next municipality right on their borders and the shopping centre is open. Can the small, local, neighbourhood stores in the small towns in the adjacent municipalities avoid the pressure or are they going to have to open too?

When they do open, those that are going to be most hurt are going to be the small family-run businesses. I think it is families that are going to be most affected by this legislation. That is where so many of us start, because of what it is going to do to our personal lives. Some of us, who work Sundays work Sundays by choice and therefore are not in a position to complain about it, realize the effect that it has on our ability to get together with our families and realize that since our lives got busier, how infrequent have become the occasions when the family sits together around the family dinner table.

The pressures for that kind of breakdown in the old traditions are inexorable and are enormous. Why do we, as legislators for this province, have to add to them by passing a piece of legislation that nobody has asked for, that most municipalities which are going to administer it do not want and that a vast number of the people of this province have already said they do not want? I do not think it is our role to change the tenor and the tempo of life in this province by a stroke of the pen. I for one do not intend to be a party to that.

Mr. Chiarelli: I would like to comment very briefly on the so-called domino effect of having one municipality closed and supposedly having an adjoining municipality attract a large regional shopping plaza. I think the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore does not understand the basic economics of shopping centres. I do not think there will be one shopping centre developer in Canada or North America that will come in with a $30-million or $40-million investment into a municipality, knowing full well that at the whim of the next council, two or three years hence, that a Sunday shopping ban could be imposed.

With the size of regional shopping plazas -- $25 million, $35 million, $40 million -- there is no developer that will ever go in on a whim that it might be able to stay open for two or three years, because next election time that council may be thrown out and that large regional shopping centre may be closed. I think we should put that argument to rest because it just is not going to happen.

Mr. Philip: On the domino theory, I think it is less and less a theory. What we have now is the experience of British Columbia, which clearly shows that the domino theory, if you apply the municipal option, works. In fact, in North Vancouver, the council, the merchants and everyone connected with that city wanted to keep the stores closed on Sunday. The moment Vancouver opened, they had to open when they saw millions of dollars travelling across the border.

We already have the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) saying that perhaps Vaughan may want to open. I can tell the member that even though I have not found one of my merchants who wants to remain open, be they the supermarkets or the hardware stores where they say their family life will be completely ruined by this legislation. But if Vaughan opens, there is no way in which Etobicoke or North York cannot open up, whether their merchants or their citizens want it or not, because they simply cannot lose millions of dollars across that Steeles Avenue border.

The domino theory is working. If one looks at Alberta, which, by and large, has had a deregulated system for a number of years because of constitutional reasons and so forth, the Lord’s Day Act, which I will not go into, we find that the West Edmonton Mall has created major havoc for a lot of the smaller malls and downtown merchants.

In my own riding, if the Cadillac Fairview mall, the Woodbine mall that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) talks about that wanted to remain open on Sunday, were open, we would have very strong pressures on Mississauga to open, because they simply would see millions of dollars again travelling across Indian Line into Etobicoke.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Philip: So it is not a fiction; it is happening in the west.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would any other honourable member wish to comment? The honourable member for -- are you in the right chair, sir?

Mr. McCague: No, I am not. I am going right now.

The Acting Speaker: If he wishes to be recognized, the member for Simcoe West.

Mr. McCague: Thank you for that reminder.

Maybe the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) could help me understand what the point was that the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) was trying to make.

Mr. Mackenzie: I think the fence is starting to bother him.

Mrs. Grier: He helped my argument.

Mr. McCague: Yes, he did; he helped the member greatly, and they were great remarks she had. However, I cannot quite understand the whim of one council to change its opinion, or to close, after one council had opened it. I think that is one of the very, very strong arguments opposed to this very bill. Maybe the member would be kind enough to help me get that straightened out.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I just wanted to speak very briefly on the domino effect, particularly as Alberta was brought in by way of example.

It is rather interesting that if you take the city of Calgary as an example for looking at the domino theory, you have a complete non-domino theory. You have some downtown malls that are opened, some that are closed, some small stores within mall areas that do not open even when the mall is open and others that do. In fact, the main downtown mall is closed, whereas the 8 Avenue mall is open, and sometimes open seasonally. In fact, it has not worked out to have a domino effect at all in Calgary.

The concerns in Edmonton, on the other hand, where there is the West Edmonton Mall, really illustrate the problem with the discussion of trying to do it under the tourist definition. If by any manner of imagination one wanted to describe something that tried to present itself provincially as a tourist attraction, it is the West Edmonton Mall, which set up skating rinks for people to practise hockey so that they could be watched. I believe they plan to have a hotel in keeping with it. They are recognizing that Edmonton serves a very isolated part of a big province and they wanted to set up a shopping mall exactly as a tourist attraction.

Certainly, under Ontario’s existing law, the West Edmonton Mall would probably be here and be open. In fact, West Edmonton Mall is a problem possibly to the municipality Monday through Sunday -- not just one day a week, but all of the days of the week. It tends at first, as it is a novelty, to draw away too much of the shopping from downtown.

So Alberta does not prove the domino theory. British Columbia, on the other hand, rather than working on the domino theory, I believe tended to be pretty much all open right away under the new law.

1620

Mrs. Grier: One is tempted to think with regard to the concentration by the government members on refuting the domino theory, me-thinks they doth protest too much. They are obviously concerned that it is a very relevant point and a point that is going to be proven, to mean we are having the whole of Ontario as wide-open Sunday shopping.

With respect to the remarks of the member for Ottawa West, I think, as I said before, he proved my point. I agree with him entirely that nobody is going to invest in a major regional shopping mall without assurance that the municipality is going to be open Sundays once Sunday shopping comes. Does the member not recognize the kind of pressure under which that puts the municipality? It is going to have to choose between the assessment offered by the shopping centre developer or between retaining a closed Sunday, if that is what it has had in the past. That is exactly the kind of pressure we do not want to place on municipalities.

They are certainly going to have to commit themselves to being open on Sundays if they wish to attract this investment as opposed to the competing municipality which is also trying to attract the investment. That is the domino effect which is going to happen right across this province and why we on this side oppose the legislation.

Mr. Pollock: I am pleased to have a chance to take part in this debate. There are a few comments I would like to put on the record.

I have shopped on Sunday and I am sure every person here has shopped on Sunday, but what is a major concern to me is those people who will have to work on Sunday. I firmly believe there should be a common pause day, a day we can spend with our families and take a break from the business world and the pressures that go with that particular business world.

I know there are businesses which are open on Sunday. They are basically tourist businesses and service businesses. I have talked to tourist operators in my area and they are very concerned about these new regulations where municipalities can declare an open Sunday. Tourist operators only have those two main months of July and August to make their living. Sure, they do some business in June and May and also in September and October, but basically, that season is short. If some of the large municipalities open up on Sunday and if that takes some of the business away from those small tourist industries, they feel it could be devastating for some of them.

The government has given large grants to some of these tourist operators, but if Sunday shopping affects their business, it is going to be a situation where the government is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

It has been mentioned in this assembly that farmers have to work on Sunday. I farmed for 35 years before I was elected to this assembly. I operated a dairy farm. Anybody who knows anything about a dairy farm knows you have to milk cows seven days a week, but I always did the milking on Sunday morning and took the rest of the day off until the milking had to be done at night. I am sure there is a large percentage of dairy farmers out there yet who go by that particular standard. They only do what they have to do or what it is they consider essential on Sunday.

I sent out a newsletter with a questionnaire in it. The results of that most recent newsletter questionnaire confirm that people are overwhelmingly against Sunday shopping. In response to the question, “Are you in favour of Sunday shopping?” 81 per cent of the constituents of Hastings-Peterborough said no. In answer to the question, “Do you agree wide-open Sunday shopping will increase pressure on families and particularly single-parent families?” 77 per cent of those who responded felt that it would.

Furthermore, 75 per cent of those responding disagreed that increased Sunday shopping would increase business and employment. Seventy-two per cent of those who responded felt that the current system was about right in the number of stores allowed to open on Sunday. Perhaps most important, over 77 per cent who responded to this questionnaire said they would not be willing to work on Sunday if they were required to. Clearly, the people of Hastings-Peterborough, and I dare say the people of Ontario, do not want Sunday shopping.

I do not like this buck-passing attitude by the government. The results of this survey and the presence of our new colleague from London North (Mrs. Cunningham) are telling the Liberal government that it is clearly making a mistake with this kind of legislation.

It has been mentioned in this assembly that government members want to know what we have got against the municipalities. As far as I am concerned, we used to let the municipalities decide on land severances. Now the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has quite an impact on that. If you have an old barn anywhere within 500 feet of a house, the ministry will not let you have a land severance. That barn might be 100 years old or it might be falling down. That does not matter. You cannot have a land severance. It will be stopped by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and yet there is nothing in place to stop some of these large, mammoth liquid manure operations.

That is a major concern to me and other farmers too. If you want a lesson on odours, you should be around one of those large, liquid manure operations, Sunday or any time. There should be legislation to prevent some of those operations rather than banning or stopping land severances where they have an old barn next to a house.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: What bill are we on?

Mr. Pollock: I was just pointing out that they took the rights away from the municipalities to pass land severances and yet they are passing this particular Sunday shopping legislation back to the municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Now I see.

Mr. Pollock: It takes a little longer for some people. We have the same situation with the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, where the ministry used to give grants to any team that was playing in an Ontario championship game, whether it was ball or hockey. Sports groups wanted the right to do this, so the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation gave them that right. Now they fund only teams of A, AA or AAA status. Those small, rural municipalities get no assistance at all.

It is basically the same situation as far as Sunday shopping goes. They are passing the buck or giving this responsibility to the municipalities. As far as I am concerned, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation should maintain its position on giving grants to all Ontario teams. It is a major concern to me.

1630

Mr. Ballinger: I have the greatest respect for the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), but I have some difficulty understanding a member who would stand in the House and say he shops on Sunday himself but is somewhat concerned about the people who will be working. I do not know why he would not have thought of that before he went shopping, if that was the case.

I always find it interesting when people in the opposition tell us that they have sent out a questionnaire in their riding and they get all this response back in terms of percentages. It would be interesting to know, in a riding that has probably a makeup of about 50,000 to 60,000 constituents, the total number of responses that came back to the questionnaire.

Of course, the member loaded the question. The number one question he put on the questionnaire was: “Are you opposed to Sunday shopping?” That is not what we are discussing in this Legislature; we are talking about Bill 113. When you load the question, you get back the answer you want.

I do not think that is what we are trying to do here at all. What we are trying to do is correct a litany of problems in relation to the Retail Business Holidays Act. I think what our government has done, what is proposed and is currently before us, is exactly that.

For an opposition member to stand in the House and say he has taken this questionnaire out to his constituents and he has an overwhelming response back which says they are opposed -- what are the numbers he got back? As a member of this Legislature, I would really be interested to know how many people responded to his questionnaire and how many people live in his constituency. Then let’s compare the numbers and we will see whether in fact there is overwhelming opposition to the proposed bill.

Mr. Philip: I am pleased that the member asked those questions because I would be happy to respond to him.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is well aware that these comments must be made upon the comments that were made by the member for Hastings-Peterborough.

Mr. Philip: You are right, Madam Speaker. In fact, the member for Hastings-Peterborough talked about the response he was getting from his constituents. I want to show other members who may have some doubts about the responses of the member for Hastings-Peterborough that in my own riding I received back almost 6,000 replies on the questionnaire, that is about a 20 per cent response. I have never had a riding report --

Mr. Ballinger: You loaded the question.

Mr. Philip: The member is making an accusation that I loaded the question. He is always anxious to see the questions I ask. In fact, he stood up in the House the other day and said I was completely nonpartisan in my approach to a lot of issues.

The response was four and a half to one against. In the 13 years I have been a member of the Legislature, I have not had any issue on which I have had so much mail as this one. I can say quite honestly that there has been no topic -- and we have dealt with a number of controversial topics -- on which I have received anywhere near the volume of mail.

In terms of the comments that we are dealing with Bill 113 and not wide-open shopping, in fact the minister herself has just said that in British Columbia, once the municipal option was introduced, everything opened. That is a different version from what the member for --

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

Mr. Dietsch: I would like to comment on the remarks by the member for Hastings-Peterborough. I can appreciate the fact that he would get an overwhelming response back on a questionnaire that was worded in the way it was worded and I appreciate the remarks from one of the honourable members opposite in respect to supporting that type of petition.

It reminds me of the article that I saw on the weekend and that I would like to bring to the attention of the member for Hastings-Peterborough. It says, “‘By signing your family day petition and by sending it with your donation today,’ the four-page letter signed by Rae concludes, ‘you can send the government a clear message that you want to keep families first.’”

I would submit that if a member really wants to feel the intent of his constituents in terms of their sending to him a clear message, then he should address the message to them in such a way that they have an opportunity for an open response, much in the same line as the way this government is dealing with this particular issue.

In turning it back to local municipalities, where they have an opportunity to deal with their own particular situation, it is important that members opposite have a clear understanding that we are talking about the option for Sunday shopping. We are not talking about wide-open Sundays. I agree with the member opposite, in that I, along with him and many others in this House have shopped on Sunday -- and I respect the courage that he has had to stand up and say that he did. Many other people would not admit to that type of conclusion.

I appreciate his story on the liquid manure as well.

Mr. Reycraft: I listened very carefully to the remarks by the member for Hastings-Peterborough. It is quite unfortunate that there is not a member of his own caucus here to take a turn in the rotation this afternoon, to comment on the speech and to make some positive remarks about it. It is unfortunate that he is here today all by himself.

His remarks were rather wide-ranging in nature and he covered a number of different issues. He talked a lot about land severances and suggested very clearly in his remarks that the province has taken away from local municipalities the right to make their own decisions on land severances. That is not the case.

The member knows that decisions on land severances in municipalities are made by municipal councils, through their committees of adjustment or through their land division committees. True, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food -- in fact, all other ministries, other bodies and other citizens have an opportunity to comment on applications for severances, Once the decisions are made, they also have an opportunity, as do the applicants, to object to those decisions. Where those objections occur, the Ontario Municipal Board acts as the arbitrator and rules whether or not the decision should be upheld.

The honourable member also asked why we would bring forward this legislation and why the members of this caucus would support it. I support this legislation because it eliminates many of the shortcomings in the current legislation. It stops stores from roping off aisles and blocking off areas to get the 2,400-square-foot maximum that they have to meet to get the exemption for small retail stores. It stops department stores that are currently masquerading as pharmacies from being open on Sunday.

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

Mr. Reycraft: It also imposes some very meaningful penalties on those who break the law.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Does the member for Hastings-Peterborough wish to reply?

Mr. Pollock: Yes, I certainly do. As far as the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) is concerned, I said loud and clear when I first started out that I have shopped on Sunday. What I am opposed to is that there is no question in my mind that when people apply for a job, if that job might entail working on Sunday, they will be asked somewhere along the line if they agree to work on Sunday, and if they say no, they just will not get the job. That is my interpretation of how Bill 114 will work out, even though that is not the bill we are debating at the present time.

As far as the member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) is concerned, he said the questionnaire was loaded. I want to point out that on most questionnaires there is a blank spot at the bottom, if you want to write in anything, and lots of them have written comments in that blank spot.

1640

Mr. Ballinger: How many? What number?

Mr. Pollock: I do not have the figures in front of me, but there certainly was a blank at the bottom.

Mr. Dietsch: What did they say?

Mr. Pollock: I cannot give the member the figures right now, but I got an excellent response. I would guess there could have been 4,000 or 5,000 who responded and, as I say, 81 per cent were opposed to Sunday shopping.

As far as land severances are concerned -- the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) mentioned them -- let’s face it, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has stepped things up, you might say. Before, all you had to meet was the agricultural code of practices. Now, if you have a barn there, it does not matter what kind of shape that barn is in -- if it is 100 years old, if it is falling down or anything -- that severance is denied.

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

Does any other member wish to participate in the debate? The minister.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It is a pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act. I will try with all my diligence to stick to the subject at hand.

Clearly, the intent of this legislation is to provide the people of Ontario with freedom of choice. That is what this debate is about: choice, not necessarily mandated shopping on any certain day. The issue of Sunday and holiday shopping has, until now, really been addressed on an ad hoc basis, mostly by the previous government, two governments ago.

What the previous government did not realize and take into account is the diversity of this province geographically and multiculturally, the multiplicity of values in this province. Let’s face it, Ontario is a very difficult place to govern. We are a very diverse place, and as a Legislature, we need flexibility in what we do when we enact as a Legislature. That is what Bill 113 addresses. What is good for Toronto may not necessarily be good for New Liskeard or Cobalt or Kenora or Windsor. I think that is what this bill takes into account.

I have had the opportunity of discussing this bill with people right across this province as I have travelled across Ontario. What I have found is that support for Sunday shopping and the local control of retail business hours varies from city to city and from town to town in Ontario, as one might expect. By introducing this legislation, the Solicitor General has recognized the multiplicity of values that I speak of and the attitudes that are so diverse in this province of ours.

The point seems to be lost on my friends opposite that this legislation neither promotes nor denies Sunday shopping. What it does is recognize that what is right for Toronto may not be right for Cobalt or New Liskeard. That is not to say that people in the north are not against shopping on holidays or on Sundays.

In my own riding of Timiskaming, the town of Temagami has permitted retailers to remain open on Sundays and all holidays since 1978. As members of this House will know, Temagami has had many challenges in the last little while and will continue to do so in the future. But the collapse of the family is not an issue in Temagami; the family is surviving very well and thriving under shopping on Sundays and other holidays.

Sault Ste. Marie is another example of a city that, as of August 1987, has allowed Sunday shopping. Sault Ste. Marie is doing very well under that from its own free choice.

However, it is the very recognition of these qualities by this government, the recognition that Ontario is a diverse and dynamic mix of communities, each with its own set of values, which has served as an impetus to amend this law to allow communities to reflect their values and traditions.

The operative frame of reference for this legislation, as I said before, is freedom of choice, and I know the meaning of this phrase might elude some of the honourable members opposite, so let me explain. Municipalities will be free to choose whether or not they wish to allow shopping on Sundays and holidays. Quite simply stated, it is a local option. The local government has been given the opportunity to make its regulation of retail business reflect the values of the community.

I would like to point out, as the minister did when she introduced this legislation, that the government will retain a provincial framework to regulate shopping on Sundays and holidays. The municipalities can either adhere to the provincial framework or enact their own bylaws to expand upon that. Contrary to what some members believe, municipalities are not being forced to make these decisions. They have the freedom to choose whether they will or not.

Let’s take a look at some of the points of this legislation. The local legislation is permissive, not mandatory. The proposed bill permits municipalities to make their own rules according to their own perceived values, and these needs will be determined locally, whether they be driven by tourism or other factors.

That is one of the main differences between this bill and the other. Municipalities have always, since the Lord’s Day (Ontario) Act, had that option, but only as it pertained to tourism. Now we have taken away that restriction and municipalities are free to have local option for any value they see fit that is expressed in their community.

In municipalities where the tourist option currently exists, a five-year transition period has been provided for in this bill, and if a municipality wishes to play no part in the regulation of Sunday or holiday hours, the provincial framework will govern the legislation. The legislation will maintain a province-wide law requiring most stores to close on Sunday unless a municipality passes a bylaw to open.

The bill clearly recognizes the dynamic and changing nature of our province. The perception that this bill will provide for wide-open Sunday shopping is completely false. The amendments that are being made correct and close those loopholes that have existed to date.

As a member of the cabinet committee on justice, I have had the opportunity to review in detail the existing legislation and the recommendations from the O’Connor report. What I found was a piece of legislation that has come to us as a result of years of tinkering and that has become unworkable, unfair and, quite frankly, unenforceable.

I am sure the members present are familiar with the catalogue of abuses which have characterized the present legislation. My colleague mentioned in his remarks a few minutes ago, the roping off of sections of stores. What a ludicrous policy that has been. It is absolutely incredible. People come from the United States and other jurisdictions and wonder what type of province we have here. There are department stores masquerading as pharmacies -- again, a real sham -- and retail establishments which remain open because profits far exceed the fines that have been levied against them for disobeying the present law.

What we found was that while we could close many of those loopholes and improve existing legislation, we could not produce one law which would meet all the needs of a socially and economically diverse province such as Ontario. The municipal option provided under this legislation effectively deals with that problem.

In summary, I would like to say that the proposed legislation will provide the people of this province with an enforceable, fair and beneficial law. Retailers will benefit from this, workers will benefit and local communities will benefit, as well as consumers. All citizens of this province will benefit from these changes.

The new law is beneficial to communities across the province because they will be able to choose to remain under the provincial framework or adapt it to their own needs. There is no doubt that these benefits truly outweigh the inequities and discrimination that existed in the past. It is my firm belief that all of Ontario will benefit from these proposed changes.

Mr. McCague: The member said he was going to stick to the subject, and he did fairly well. There are just a couple of points I might bring to his attention.

He says the government is giving people the freedom of choice. I do not know how he figures that. I think the 60 to 70 per cent figure of people opposed to Sunday shopping is accurate, from all polls, surveys, members’ questionnaires and so forth that have been done.

1650

The member mentioned that Sault Ste. Marie is open on Sunday and that it works well. I think the honourable member knows why the Sault is open on Sunday; it is because the bordering town in the US is open, too.

Then he said that people from the US think it is ridiculous when they come up here and want to shop on Sundays but cannot. That, to me, indicates fairly and squarely where the honourable member is coming from. He is in favour of wide-open Sunday shopping. There I rest my case.

Mr. Hampton: I find it interesting that the member speaks about freedom of choice as if this bill will somehow ensure that everyone will be accorded freedom of choice. This bill does not ensure freedom of choice at all, in our view.

I would want the member to reflect upon that. What it in fact ensures is that everyone will be open to the ramifications of the marketplace. That is hardly freedom for a community which does not want Sunday shopping but recognizes that the community next to it is going to go for Sunday shopping. That is coercion by the marketplace.

I would think there ought to be a little more reflection on this point. What might be freedom for one individual who owns a supermarket or a shopping centre on the outskirts of a community to take away or encroach on the market of some other business in another municipality will not be freedom for the businesses in those municipalities. That will be coercion by the marketplace: either we force council in our community to opt for Sunday shopping or we see our markets go away.

I hardly see how the member can describe that as freedom. That is widely known by economists as coercion by the marketplace and not freedom of the marketplace.

Mr. Pollock: The member mentions the fact that this will be good for business. There are going to be only so many dollars out there. Some of the big chain stores are going to get a bigger piece of that action and some of the small tourist operators are not going to get the same piece of that action. As I say, that is a major concern to me.

There is no question about it, there is only a road between municipalities and if you have one municipality staying open on Sunday and the other one not open on Sunday, you will get the same situation we have today. On one side of the road, there is a business which is going to be open, and on the other side, there will not be.

Mr. Reycraft: I continue to be intrigued by the arguments put forward by those who support the domino theory and suggest that the freedom of choice which is going to be provided in Bill 113 is not freedom of choice at all. They are saying that if the stores in one area open on a Sunday, then the other stores nearby will be forced to. There is a certain tunnel vision there that baffles me, I must say.

Surely, the members who are saying that are aware of the fact that on the other six days of the week there is no single standard across the province. Indeed, even within a given municipality there is no single standard. In many communities there are times of the week when some stores are open and others are not, and the fact that some have opened at a particular time does not mean that everybody else is going to follow suit.

I would also implore them to take a look at what has happened in other jurisdictions, to go into Michigan or into New York, where stores have been able to open on Sunday for a long time. In the towns and cities of those states, they will not find all the stores open on a given Sunday. Some of them do, that is true, but others remain closed.

In those communities, it is very clear that the store owners and municipalities are exercising freedom of choice. The same freedom of choice is going to be available to the communities and municipalities in Ontario under Bill 113.

The Deputy Speaker: Other questions and comments? If not, would the minister wish to respond?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would be quite happy to respond to some of the comments made, especially by the member for Simcoe West. I would like to put the record straight that I am not an advocate of Sunday shopping; I am an advocate of local autonomy.

When I was referring to the roping off, what I was referring to was how ridiculous this system of roping off is. That is what Americans and people from other jurisdictions find ridiculous about our system, not necessarily that the stores are closed, but that it is kind of a rinkydink law that we have where things are roped off, drugstores have disguised themselves as department stores, and this sort of thing. That is what I was referring to.

What you are really talking about is the 60 or 70 per cent, maybe, who do not want Sunday shopping. There might be a constituency out there that does, and what about that 30 to 40 per cent of people? You are adhering to the philosophy of the tyranny of the majority. I think there has to be freedom of choice in this province for people to decide for themselves.

You criticize Sault Ste. Marie. You are right; the reason Sault Ste. Marie is now open on Sundays is because it is a border city and it finds itself quite helpless being a border city when Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, is open. Therefore, why should Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, not have the freedom to open on Sunday if it wishes to do so, so that it can compete with Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan? Why can other towns and cities in this province not open for whatever reason they want, if they see fit, if their local people agree to do that?

I think we have good legislation here. I hope we wrap up the speeches on this so that we can on to a vote and get on to other important legislation.

Mr. Hampton: It is indeed an opportunity that I relish to speak on this legislation, because there is so much that has been left unsaid and there is so much that has been said that has been stretched quite out of proportion. I think it is only appropriate that I have a chance to deal with some of those things.

It is quite interesting that this government can take two very different perspectives and then throw them both into the category of the local option. I wonder, in looking at what the government is trying to do, how far it would be tempted to cast the net in order to avoid the recognition that, in fact, there is a great deal of difference between the existing so-called local option and what it has proposed as the local option for the future.

The fact of the matter is that the existing legislation, the existing Retail Business Holidays Act, does not make it easy for a municipality to institute wide-open Sunday shopping. It does not make it easy at all. In fact, what it does is permit a municipality to open up within its boundaries, by means of bylaw, certain shopping opportunities and certain Sunday opening opportunities for certain businesses. That can only be accomplished after a fair amount of public consultation. It can only be accomplished after businesses have had an opportunity to state their views on it.

Even at that there is an opportunity for some review in the existing legislation. It is pretty clear, when you read the existing legislation, that what is involved and what was intended was that there should be some opportunities for those businesses that fall within the category of the tourist option or the small-business option, to be permitted to open on Sundays. What was to be avoided was the wide-open Sunday phenomenon.

If you look, in contrast, at what the government is proposing, it is indeed a local option of an entirely different feather. Municipalities are telling the government, as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario told the government, that they do not want any part of this, that they are not interested in it. In effect, what this legislation does is to put a municipality in a situation where it can be pressured into wide-open Sunday shopping very easily, within its municipal borders in terms of internal pressure or in terms of external pressure, the so-called domino effect.

1700

I find it very interesting but at the same time a little alarming that the government is trying to say, “What existed before was the local option and what’s going to exist now is the local option,” and it tries to lump the two things together as if they are the same thing. They are not at all the same thing.

First, clearly, if you read the new act, it almost establishes now, if not very soon in the future, the roller-coaster that leads to wide-open Sunday shopping. The previous act placed a lot of roadblocks in front of that and, I would argue, was intended to do so. There is quite a lot of difference between what the government is doing with this new legislation and what was intended under the old legislation.

The second thing that needs to be looked at is this. The government says, “We’ve got all these problems under the old legislation and we have to fix them.” In fact, the government could easily have fixed them within the terms of the old legislation. There is nothing novel being done in terms of fixing the problems that existed. The fixing could just as easily have been done within the confines of the old legislation as is proposed within the confines of the new legislation.

The difference would be, however, that we would still have in the old legislation an intention and an effect that we would not have wide-open Sunday shopping, whereas what we are going to have in the new legislation, and what I would argue is intended in the new legislation, is to begin the road to wide-open Sunday shopping.

I think it needs to be said and repeated that if the government were really serious in terms of having a meaningful local option for municipalities, it would attempt to fix the problems with the old legislation, not attempt to bring in this new legislation, which is wide-open Sunday shopping legislation; it is not a local option at all.

Let’s just talk about the option for a minute, because we have heard a lot of discussion today about freedom of choice and freedom for different communities. In listening to some of it, I almost think some of the members of the government do not understand how the retail marketplace operates.

We had a very interesting discussion earlier in the week in Guelph. One of the things that was pointed out and that people agreed there was a fair amount of substance in was that the government would never propose environmental regulation across the province in terms of a local option. It would never propose that. Can you imagine a developer or someone who wants to build a paper mill or someone who wants to build a chemical plant going to one municipality and saying: “You know, if you would loosen up your regulations a little bit, I’d honestly consider building here. But if you’re not prepared to loosen up your regulations, I’m going to go to the municipality down the road and I’m going to build there”?

The government would never propose that because I think it recognizes or I hope it recognizes that the environmental regulatory body in the province is too important and our regulation of environmental rules is too important.

But the same marketplace situation, where you have an entrepreneurial developer who could say, “I will build my factory here if you will lessen or decrease the environmental regulation,” the same marketplace argument works equally effectively in the retail sales sector.

Mr. Neumann: Are you suggesting the same evening hours, Mondays to Saturdays?

Mr. Hampton: It works equally effectively in the retail sales sector. I hear one of the members opposite saying, “Are you suggesting it works equally as well in the evenings?” The answer is not as much, but the same phenomenon can occur.

You could easily have a situation where one municipality says, “Yes, we’re going to allow stores to stay open well into the evening on all evenings,” and have a municipality located close by which then says, “We will have to allow stores in our municipality to stay open on the same evenings or to a similar degree if we are going to permit them to protect their market share.”

That is not unusual. Municipalities understand that and they have gone through that. That is exactly why municipalities are saying they do not like this legislation and do not want any part of it, because it throws them wide open to what we know to be the coercion of the marketplace.

Let me give some of the members from southern Ontario an example of how the issue is being placed in northern Ontario. I understand some of the members opposite go fishing in northern Ontario once in a while, so let me put it in terms that they would understand.

When this legislation was first being discussed, there was some excitement about it among some retail store operators in Thunder Bay who thought, “If we can have this approved in Thunder Bay and we can stay open on Sundays, think of all the business we can draw out of smaller communities elsewhere in northwestern Ontario, people who will come to Thunder Bay to shop on weekends.”

That was the line of thought, that if Thunder Bay merchants could get it approved and could stay open on Sundays, they would be able to draw weekend business or even weekday business -- certainly on the weekends, however -- out of places like Kenora, Dryden, Atikokan, Manitouwadge, Longlac, Marathon or wherever. That would be the attraction to bring people to Thunder Bay on the weekends. It did not take the local municipalities in all of those small communities very long to figure out, “If Thunder Bay does it, we have to do it, because we want to be able to protect the market share of some of our local businesses that operate here.”

I am glad to say, however, that finally in Thunder Bay the chamber of commerce came to its senses and recently announced to this government and to all of the other chambers of commerce across northwestern Ontario that it wanted no part of this legislation, that it was not interested in cutting into the market shares of small towns like Atikokan, Ignace, Marathon or Terrace Bay.

That is something I think the government has to understand. There is some coercion in the marketplace out there. If a local municipality sees businesses located within that municipality potentially losing a share of their business to a neighbouring municipality because the neighbouring municipality has okayed Sunday shopping, the natural outcome of that, and certainly the economic lobbying that is going to take place, will be, “Let us open on Sunday as well.”

That is precisely why municipalities are saying over and over again: “We don’t want any part of this. We don’t want to be part of this domino effect. We don’t want to be put into this pressure cooker. Don’t bring in this new legislation. If you have to do some fixing, fix up the old legislation, which is not in any way intended to promote this kind of wide-open Sunday shopping.”

1710

Finally, let me put it in terms that merchants have put it to me in the communities that I visited. If you have a store, like a Metropolitan store which offers a wide variety of goods, and if that store, through this legislation and through municipal acceptance, decides that it wants to stay open, virtually all the other small businesses in the community are faced with a desperate choice:

“Do we open on Sunday merely to protect our market because the Metropolitan store is going to stay open? And if, in staying open on Sunday, we realize we probably are not going to have the extra business to be able to afford to hire new employees, so that we will have to go in and staff the store ourselves, do we do that or do we stay closed on Sunday and inevitably lose some of our market because some people will find it convenient to go to the Met store on Sunday?”

That is the kind of situation the government is putting them in, and that is not freedom of choice. That is not freedom of choice at all. That is putting someone in a very desperate situation and then trying to tell them that it is freedom. A lot of small business people who have spoken to me, and who have spoken to some of the other members of the other opposition party, have simply said: “That is not choice. That is desperation and we do not want any part of it.” They have made that very clear, to their municipal councillors, and that is why the municipalities have told the government over and over again that they do not want to be part of that desperate situation either.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: No, they do not want to make a decision.

Mr. Hampton: I hear one of the cabinet ministers opposite saying they do not want to make a decision. They do not want the difficult situation, the difficult decisions that the government is trying to duck, because they have even less enforcement authority. They have fewer economic resources at their hands. They have fewer resources all the way around. They have less legislative authority to deal with the problem than the provincial government has, so no wonder they do not want the government’s headache.

The government has the legislative authority, the economic resources, and the planning power to deal with it, but it says: “Oh, it’s a difficult decision. We don’t want it. Drop it on the municipalities. They have fewer resources, less legislative power and less economic power. Throw it on them.”

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: You don’t know the workings of local government.

Mr. Hampton: I wanted to deal with this issue on a relatively quiet note but some of the members opposite insist on jumping into the debate uninvited. I have to say this: Before the election campaign of last summer, the Liberal Party was touring Ontario saying, “Give us a majority so we can tackle the tough issues and make tough decisions.”

In November of last year, not less than two months after the election, what were they saying? They were saying: “Gee, you know, this is a tough issue. Now that we have our majority government, we want to duck it.” That is exactly what they are saying and that is exactly what they are doing.

It is a difficult issue. But I hear the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) speak and I hear the Solicitor General speak. They stand up and they say: “It’s a difficult issue to govern on. Aspects of religion are involved. Aspects of different parts of geography are involved. Different parts of the economy are involved.”

That is exactly why the province ought to be handling it. It has the legislative power, it has the economic resources and it has the regulatory personnel to be able to deal with it. The government should not duck it and drop it on municipalities that do not have any of those resources to deal with this difficult issue.

The government should live up to what it was saying before the election. It is a difficult issue. It cuts a lot of different ways. They have their majority government now, so they should deal with the difficult questions, not try to duck them and leave them to the municipalities.

I could go on much longer but I see that there are some members of the government who want to respond, so it is only fair to let them jump into the debate at this time.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: When I listen to the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) I am constantly reminded that, in his party, the more it changes, the more it stays the same. I do remember the former member for Cornwall, George Samis, speaking against the Retail Business Holidays Act when it was introduced in 1975 predicting --

Mr. Cousens: Where is he now?

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I am not sure, but he did predict gloom and disaster and the downfall of the Ontario economy when, like a set of dominoes falling, the tourist exemption spread across Ontario and wreaked havoc with family life. Of course, it did not happen, and we know 15 years later that it did not happen.

My friend has told me he is a lawyer and he has mentioned that he is concerned that what we should be doing is introducing amendments within the context of the Retail Business Holidays Act, not introducing a new act. Frankly, I do not understand what he is saying. It is a distinction without a difference; he has lost himself in his rhetoric.

Finally, I would suggest to him that, as a noted defender of law, order and family values, he study where the domino theory comes from as a political theory. The theory of dominoes comes from the debate that surrounded the Korean and Vietnam wars back in the 1950s and 1960s, when people alleged that if we did not uphold law and order in Vietnam and Korea that, like dominoes, the neighbouring countries would fall to the Communist regime.

We believed it then, but Vietnam fell and no one else fell. I suggest that the member study his history books and he will find that the domino theory is nothing more than a scare tactic of political terrorists such as himself and his colleagues and has no meaning or validity in modern-day society in Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: It is indeed unusual. I hear all this badgering from across the way here and then when they have a chance to respond, they duck. But one of the members of the government did respond. Let me deal with him as he should be dealt with. We want to thank him for his lessons in cold-war rhetoric. He has indeed enhanced the level of debate in the House by introducing it, but I want to give him an alternative version of history.

Before people in the Pentagon in the United States discovered what they called the domino effect, trade unions in Europe and North America had long discovered the vagaries of the marketplace and had long known that where you have an absence of legislative authority or you have a government which is not willing to regulate or to deal with economic and industrial matters, it is very easy for the owners of a factory to walk into one community and say: “We will build a pulp mill here, if you’ll permit us to pollute your air and your water to an unlimited degree. If you won’t, we’ll go down the river 40 miles and we’ll do it in that municipality.”

Working people have long understood the vagaries of the marketplace and they have long understood what economic coercion means. I would suggest that small business people have long understood what economic coercion means when you have monopolistic practices. They have understood what it means, how you can be driven out of business or placed in a very uncertain situation. That is the kind of situation we are talking about, not the domino effect of the Pentagon theories, but the kind of economic coercion that can naturally result in this kind of situation.

Mr. Cousens: I would rather be dealing with some of the issues that are important to this province right now --

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Housing.

Mr. Cousens: If the agenda of this government happened to treat housing, as the issue it is, we could be debating something which would be putting something forward as a solution to the major crisis we are having in the urban areas. We could be doing far more in support of the free trade initiatives of our country.

Mr. Callahan: What?

Mr. Cousens: Yes, the free trade. I am just saying there are issues with which this province should be dealing and giving leadership. What has happened now is that this government has decided that the big issue of the day, now that it has its 94-seat majority, is to put forward a resolution which does not have the genuine support of the people of this province. It does not have the majority support.

The surprising thing for me is that in spite of the petitions and the pleadings of so many different people, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his cabinet ministers who are bringing it forward will not back off, will not reconsider. It somehow makes it a fait accompli.

1720

We are here. We will put on the record the feelings of many of the people who have expressed their concerns to us. We have done it through the petitions that have been tabled in this House. We have done it through the speeches that have been articulate in explaining the problems of those who are concerned. I can only say that it is with a great deal of sadness that this House should be spending this much time on this issue.

It has been dealt with through committees of this House, of which the Solicitor General has been a member. They have come back and said: “Look, we have come to a consensus. All parties agree that there would be no need for the province to pass the problem of Sunday shopping” -- and by the way, it should be called “Sunday working” – “to pass the whole issue of Sunday working out to the municipalities. In fact, the province should retain control of this large issue.”

But not so. The very person who is now Solicitor General, who was very much a part of the committee of the Legislature that reviewed the way in which this legislation should be dealt with, has come back in the House camouflaged now as the saviour of Sunday shopping. Except for the rump, none of us on this side of the House is happy with this decision. For those who are looking on, I am sorry to have to call them that, but the rump is over here. Something like 24 members of the Legislature are Liberals sitting over on this side of the House. They come along and clap their hands like trained seals in support of the government motion.

I did not want to take a position on Sunday shopping without considering what my own constituents thought about it, so in my recent newsletter I sent out several questions to the people in the riding of Markham in order to solicit their views. I think it is so important that members of the provincial Legislature consider the views of other people and do not just come here and start parroting the views that are being pushed by the cabinet ministers or by the Premier.

Should they think for themselves, they might come out with a different point of view than that of the government. Indeed, I am sure many Liberals have had a chance to express their views in caucus but, unfortunately, they have not been successful in persuading the Premier, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Labour, the Attorney General or the others who are leading this push, to back off and to rethink their views on Sunday working.

However, being a responsible member of the Legislature, I took the position of asking my own constituents. I venture to say that few government members have had the nerve to go and ask their constituents, because they are being ordered by the Premier and the cabinet to come along and fall into line. The member for Durham-York is one of them. His own riding office was coming out and saying, “Look, we don’t know his position on Sunday shopping,” because the fact of the matter is, deep down, he is in support of having Sunday as a day off.

I asked four questions, and the answers to them came back with a very clear message. I would like to put them on the record. It will soon be public in our own area through my next newsletter and through news releases; none the less, the data that I am sharing with the House today have not previously been made public.

They are the results of a survey that went out as a householder to all my constituents. There are 125,000 people in the riding of Markham. It consists of the town limits of Markham, as well as Thornhill, Unionville, Markham village and Milliken. We are in a position now to have a strong statement from this community.

The first question on Sunday shopping was: “Do you think the province should transfer responsibility to municipalities for the regulation of Sunday shopping?” Thirty-one per cent said yes, 65 per cent said no, 4 per cent had no opinion.

The next question I had was: “Are you in favour of more open and available Sunday shopping?” Thirty-six per cent said, “Yes, we’re in favour of more open and available Sunday shopping,” 61 per cent said no, 3 per cent had no opinion.

The third question was: “Would you or a member of your family be willing to work on Sunday?” Thirty-three per cent were willing to work on Sunday, 64 per cent were not, 3 per cent had no opinion.

The fourth question was: “Do you presently have a pause day each week?” Eighty-four per cent said yes, 12 per cent said no, 4 per cent had no opinion.

The number of respondents to this questionnaire is far in excess of any questionnaire that I have ever had before. I have three large boxes. I would estimate that in excess of 5,000 people responded to this questionnaire. By virtue of that fact, I am very comfortable in this Legislature in standing up and speaking against the proposed Bill 113 of the Solicitor General, which will open up Sundays and which will go against the feelings of my own riding, the people of Markham.

The fact of the matter is that they had a chance to put some comments down. Some of the comments were in favour of having Sunday shopping.

One was: “People who don’t want to shop don’t have to. I have lived in Alberta and travelled extensively in the United States where Sunday shopping is permitted and have never noticed a deterioration in the quality of life or other major problems caused by this change.”

Here is a person who is saying: “Hey, I’m on the other side of the coin. I’m in favour of it being open.”

Another person said, “As a retailer, I feel that working six days a week is sufficient and I do not believe my business will improve if we trade on a Sunday.”

Another person commented: “There should be no regulations restricting days for shopping. If someone wants to conduct business seven days a week, so be it.”

Another person had this to say, and I think this was a more representative sample of the views: “We are living in a hastened world. Shopping has become a recreation and many other valuable activities are falling by the wayside. Sunday shopping would likely add to health care costs as already strained family life becomes more stressed and torn.”

I wonder what is happening here, as we have been in this Legislature now for many weeks, in which Sunday working and Sunday shopping has been an issue. Thousands upon thousands of names of petitioners have been tabled in this House, and we have received literally thousands of letters from people asking this government to reverse its decision.

We know how the people have reacted in London North and we know that there is a deep, deep feeling in this province to maintain something that is uniquely Canadian, uniquely Ontarian, uniquely part of the family life that is the fabric of what this province is all about. They are saying, “Let’s protect it, let’s save it, let’s do what we can to preserve it.”

Yet here in this House we are about to bring about a change that will hit 130 ridings like a domino effect, one by one by one, as we see an opening up of Sundays in a way that, quite candidly, is not in the interests of the people of Ontario.

They have elected us to do a job, and as we look at the people who are writing us today, 65 per cent are saying, “Don’t do it.” Yet the Premier has such a majority that he does not have to listen; he does not have to be open; he does not have to respond in a way that the people of Ontario really want him to.

I asked this question in a different way in a newsletter to the local newspapers, the Economist and Sun and the Richmond Hill Liberal, which is the name of my riding newspaper.

[Applause]

Mr. Cousens: I know, but our paper being called the Liberal has really been a challenge, because in spite of the name, unlike those people, it is very objective. It is a very clean newspaper, which is something else I cannot say for everything else that is called Liberal.

Mr. Faubert: Madam Speaker, did you hear that?

Mr. Cousens: I was not thinking of the Speaker. When the Speaker is in the chair as Madam Speaker, she is neutral and is more Tory than she is Liberal at those moments. I have a great deal of respect for her objectivity in the chair and I am delighted that she is there and not the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert).

Anyway, as I was trying to bring out some of the concerns as to why people are opposed to Sunday shopping, I was asking rhetorically a number of questions and I asked, “Where is the pressure coming from for a wide-open Sunday?”

First of all, there is no pressure coming from the municipalities. The association that represents the municipalities in Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, voted overwhelmingly against the province placing the local option on the shoulders of municipal governments.

1730

We have in this House today the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, and we have the present Minister for Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins), and both of them have made a great effort in trying to respond.

[Applause]

Mr. Cousens: I can give them a one-handed clap, but the fact is, both these ministers would have been aware of the kind of thinking that is coming out of AMO and yet both of them have not deviated from their position on Sunday shopping and Sunday working.

AMO, by a vote of 99 per cent -- there was one person who voted against it; Mr. Lastman’s representative was the one who voted for wide-open Sunday shopping. Why have representatives such as AMO come forward with a viewpoint and had it totally ignored?

I would like to raise another question as to why we are here discussing this, and it has to do with the pressure from the courts. We do not have pressure from the courts in Ontario regarding the existing legislation. The courts have in fact ruled against Paul Magder, the Toronto fur merchant, thus upholding the present Retail Business Holidays Act.

The courts have also emphasized that there are benefits to a common pause day. If the courts had come to this House with a different decision, such as the one that came through on abortion, we would be facing a quite different set of circumstances because then we would be forced into reviewing our legislation. But that is not the case. The courts instead have upheld the province’s view of a pause day.

In spite of that fact, this Solicitor General -- and by the way, I compliment the Solicitor General for being here and for taking in this debate, even though it is her bill. Some of the other ministers have not done that, and I appreciate the fact that she is here to suffer my speech. I think that is something very honourable. Even though she is dealing with a dishonourable deed, she herself is always an honourable person.

Mr. Smith: That is the catch.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: There is no hooker on this side of the House, and I know the Solicitor General will do what she can to get rid of them around the province.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Where are the rest of your boys?

Mr. Cousens: I am not answering that.

Dealing with the bill again, where is the pressure coming from for this Sunday shopping? When we dealt with London North a short time ago – “we” being the Progressive Conservatives -- we had that opportunity when the previous member for London North, a very dear friend to all of us, became more of a friend when he resigned to give us a chance to win the seat.

But the fact of the matter is, the turnaround of those voters in London North by electing the present and sitting member for the Progressive Conservative caucus was a clear statement to the Premier, in whose community the present member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) and the Solicitor General live, that the people of London are not interested in having a wide-open Sunday.

That was a strong statement made in that by-election and it is a statement we are making again today.

Mr. Ballinger: You can’t assume it was on that issue.

Mr. Cousens: The government is being reminded of it every day in this House because --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. Cousens: Yes, Madam Speaker. It is hard to handle the member for Durham-York.

The Acting Speaker: All members come to order, please.

Mr. Cousens: There is no pressure as well from the majority of retailers across Ontario. The president of Idomo Furniture International is leading a strong lobby of retailers, big and small, objecting to being open for business on Sundays. That is something that came through in the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus’s tour across the province in the presentations that were made to our own caucus as we were travelling Ontario to try to get the view of the people.

We had Canadian Tire stores, we had General Motors dealers, we had Chrysler dealers, we had the large franchises. They were saying, in a clear way, “Don’t go for a wide-open Sunday; we need that pause day.” The retailers across this province are saying, “Protect us from having to be forced into being open on Sunday.”

The other retailers who spoke out strongly against having a wide-open Sunday were the small, “mom and pop” stores. They have to be in the store to protect their business, to protect the cash register, to protect their inventory. Unless they are there, they feel something could happen without their presence. Indeed, their business is based on their presence, on their monitoring what is going on. They are not in a position to just take a day off. If they are going to be in a position now where they have to be open on Sunday in order to be competitive with all the other small retailers and small businesses, when are they going to have a chance for a break?

Mr. Pollock: That’s a good point.

Mr. Cousens: It is a very good point, and I appreciate the support from my friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough. He understands that, because in his riding as well there are many small retailers who enjoy having that day off.

Even the retail employees have questioned why we need this legislation. It was not just something that happened without being noticed. I think almost every employee of the IGA stores in my riding of Markham signed petitions saying: “Please protect us. Protect us so that we can have a day with our families and a day off.” The fact is that they did that spontaneously. They did it as a statement so that they could have someone who is interested in their concerns.

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: The honourable member is having a big laugh over there. I do not think he really cares about the voters now that he has gotten elected. The fact is that that is not good.

I am concerned with a number of the details of Bill 113. When we start looking at the whole jurisdiction of this problem, we realize that the Attorney General is on the record with regard to this issue back a few years ago when he was fighting this issue in another capacity, before he became the very high and mighty Attorney General of Ontario.

I would like to put into the record some of the statements that were made by our present Attorney General when he was defending the conviction of Paul Magder. When Paul Magder appealed his conviction, our friend the Attorney General made the following statements, which I would like to put on the record because it is not the same Attorney General who is coming out now and saying, “We want to have a wide-open Sunday.”

“The evidence ‘overwhelmingly’ indicated that there was a need for a legislative pause day due to a reluctance on the part of many industries to regulate themselves in accordance with this objective.

“There is an accompanying erosion of the opportunity for retail workers to participate in leisure activities with family, friends and others. A uniform pause day was needed to allow the pause day of retail workers to coincide with that of their school-aged children, spouses and friends and community events. A quality common day of recreation was needed for as many of Ontario’s citizens as was possible.

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

That is our Attorney General speaking back a few years ago. How is it that he could have such a conversion, now taking the opposite point of view? Here he was then, saying: “There’s a need for a pause day. Protect the employees.”

That is a concern we have in this House. There is no one there to protect them now. There is nothing to protect them. This legislation that is coming forward does not begin to do that, and I will explain further, in a few moments, some of the ramifications of this legislation.

I am concerned that the Attorney General has forgotten the deep social implications for our society of having a day of rest, of having a pause day. I have to say that such a move on the part of this government is not only bad policy; it is bad legislation and it is bad politics.

1740

I would like to say that what this now gives local councils is an option to do pretty well as they please. I am concerned with a number of things --

Hon. Mr. Mancini: They can do it now. Come on, tell the truth.

Mr. Cousens: Well, that is a worry. First, it creates an open designation based on location, size, number of persons employed, the character of the business or any other criterion. A subsequent, simple motion by a council can alter an existing bylaw by extending the open designation to one more store, one more street, a new development or a whole new town. It can be as big or as small as they want it. Listen to this: “A simple motion in council will now be able to change the hours of Sunday or holiday shopping in all or part of designated open areas.”

The third thing this bill does is change, for one time only or for all time, whether or not retail employees and employees in a municipality can celebrate Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday, New Year’s Day, Victoria Day, Canada Day, Labour Day or Thanksgiving Day with their families. We have had traditions in this country for many, many years when these were days that were set apart as special holidays. I have a great deal of confidence in councils, but if one council starts and then another council, before you know it we will have lost something that separated us from those south of the border or from those other areas where people say they now have that wide-open opportunity.

I do not want that. I want to keep New Year’s Day and I want to keep Sunday. I want to keep Victoria Day. I want to keep Canada Day. I want to keep certain things that are different. I want to keep a pause day. I want to bring my family around me on those days, and so do many other people. I do not want to have to be forced into not being together with my family and my loved ones because some of them are out working and some of them are now distracted with other things. I think it is good if you can shut the door to some of those opportunities. What you are doing with this bill is saying, “Everything is open; it is wide, wide open.”

I am concerned. The local councils have that option. I say the province should have that option, and the province should be the one that is bringing out the legislation rather than allowing every municipality, some 832 of them across the province, to do what it wants, where it wants, when it wants, why ever it wants to do it, without having some kind of standard legislation. That is the problem.

This bill will also create open areas at some times in the year which are closed other times.

This bill, in spite of square-footage requirements in the bill for pharmacies, convenience stores and others, changes those requirements. The prohibition against roping off becomes meaningless in a world where an individual store can make application to have the space requirements increased by a simple motion in council.

Further, after the special exemptions for different types of retail businesses are granted in the bill, the government has listed a whole variety of different kinds of businesses that can be exempted.

Why would the bill also, according to this legislation, reduce the amount of fines for people who are going to break the law? If we are going to have a law, let’s keep it so it has some teeth to it. Why does the bill reduce the $50,000 fine that is now in place to a much lower amount?

Mr. Ballinger: It goes from $10,000 to $50,000.

Mr. Cousens: I would stand corrected on that. Is that true? I would be very interested. My understanding, and I appreciate that -- and this is the point of not rushing it through.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind members who wish to make comments and questions that there is a period for that after the member’s speech.

Mr. Cousens: I would apologize to the Solicitor General on that, because my understanding was that the fine for people who break the Sunday closing laws had gone down and I was concerned about that; instead, they are raising them. I am pleased to hear that; that is a good direction, and I compliment you for that if that is the case.

[Applause]

Mr. Cousens: The one thing that comes through in that gesture that just happened is that I am willing to apologize. You guys are not willing to apologize for anything.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. As much as I reminded members that there was a question and comment period, I would like to remind the current member to address his remarks through the Speaker.

Mr. Cousens: I accept that as well, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate your bringing that out.

There is a whole designation of what is an open area. As we look at the opportunity that is going to take place, as soon as some municipality seizes upon this legislation as an opportunity to open up a new mall or some new business to increase its tax base, that can become a hub for marketing activities. It will become like a discount zone, and people will come and go there for special Sunday shopping. Then, before we know it, that is going to affect every other retailer in the neighbouring area, because the media and the advertising that will go on, beaming that message out to other communities, will cause people to cross municipal boundaries to go to that location to do their purchasing.

I am concerned as well that the whole public debate that is going to take place within the different municipalities because of this bill can be of such a minimal amount. Do members see what is going to happen? We are going to lull the province to sleep by having these debates in the House, and then the people in the communities out there will say: “It’s just going to happen. It’s inevitable.” So when a local council decides it is going to bring in a motion to open up its area, it does not have to give a lot of public notice on it. It does not have to come out and say, “Two weeks from tonight, we’re going to be having a public debate on opening up Main Street as a tourist area for totally open shopping.”

From the beginning, this government maintained that the issue of wide-open Sunday shopping should be settled at the local level with local debate. Bill 113 provides no mechanism to cause that debate. I wonder why not. I wonder why the government would come out at one time saying there was going to be encouragement for public debate, and there is nothing in this bill to do that. I am sure that is something that will come through the public meetings this summer, and we will find amendments that can be made to this bill that will force municipalities to have a series of open meetings, a chance for public response not unlike when they are making changes to zoning bylaws in the community and the community is warned about it in advance. The onus would fall on the municipality to make sure that the community is given lots of warning.

As it stands right now, a local councillor -- or the region -- without warning, could introduce a motion at any council meeting and pass a bylaw to create or amend an open designation with little or no debate.

Mr. Faubert: A one-man council, eh?

Mr. Cousens: The point is extremely valid. Why should that be done without having that opportunity for the whole community to respond to it?

Mr. Harris: That is a good point. The member is making excellent points.

Mr. Cousens: I thank the honourable member.

I wonder what is happening with regard to tenant protection. It is another one of the small worries I have, among many large worries, with regard to this bill.

The government tried to address the problem of tenants of malls whose leases require individual stores to be open when the mall is open. What we are talking about here is where, if a mall decides to be open, an individual retailer within the mall, at his own option and his own discretion does not have to be open under this legislation.

I am wondering how true that really is, because when that small retailer has decided on his own not to be open on Sunday, and owner of the large mall says, “We want you to be open. If you decide not to, just wait till your lease comes up for renewal, because we might not be renewing it for you.” There is going to be pressure. There is going to be great pressure on those small leaseholders to fall in line. When the lease is not renewed, the owner is not going to say, “It’s because you weren’t open on Sunday;” but it is going to be because of that reason, and it is going to be to the advantage of the mall owner to make sure that all its tenants are open on those holidays or on Sundays as well.

This legislation is fraught with problems. We are talking about a piece of legislation that touches upon the very dynamics of what our communities are all about. It touches upon what we really want for our province and for our people -- a chance to get together with their families in their homes and with their people; a chance to have time off, a chance to rest, a time to grow, a time to read, a time to swim, a time to recreate themselves. By just keeping the old clock moving as far as work is concerned, many people are not going to have that opportunity.

That is the feeling I have coming through to me in the letters that are coming from people in Markham. I have never had more letters from more people in support of having a pause day each week. In other words, these people are among that 65 per cent of those in my riding who are saying: “Keep it closed. Keep it down. Let’s not have an open Sunday.”

1750

I have a letter from very good friends of mine, the Sharps on Robinson Street:

“We wish to voice our concerns regarding the issue on Sunday shopping. As I myself work in the retail business, as well as a member of my immediate family, we really appreciate having the family time we share on the one day that we can all get together, which is Sunday. I definitely would not want to see this change, which I am afraid would happen if Sunday openings are made wide open. I feel the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day. Thank you.”

I do not know what they are thanking me for because I do not see any way in which I am going to be able to help the Sharps reverse this legislation.

I have another letter from the Bakers in Concord. These are people who live over in the riding of the Minister of Labour, the member for York Centre. “We would like to add our voices re the controversy about open Sunday shopping.” I suppose they could not write to the Minister of Labour because he is already committed to something, so they have written to me. They probably know that I am concerned and care --

Mr. Ballinger: Cut it out. That’s a bunch of bull.

Mr. Cousens: I have a great deal of respect for what the Minister of Labour is trying to do, but the problem is that he is committed to going ahead with this horrible legislation, so they are writing to me. “We are against the open-Sunday concept because we feel there should be a day of rest and that it will have a negative impact in many ways upon our lives.”

I have a letter here from a grade 11 student at Markham District High School. He has written to me at this time “to show where I stand regarding Sunday shopping. I have seen your questionnaire and the question pertaining to this most important subject. I hope that you would be trying to do something to stop this outrage from ever coming about.”

A grade 11 student taking the time to write. I think it is excellent. He says, “I think I speak for all devoted Christians when I say this law would destroy the Sabbath for all society and slowly start to deteriorate all righteous values left in our country. Furthermore, I hope you are a Christian like myself and will fight against this proposal. In closing, I would like to just leave you with a few words from the scriptures,” and he goes on to quote at some length. I appreciate the fact that here is a young person with a sense of values, a sense of knowing what he wants, who is prepared to share his views with me.

I am impressed as well with the position that was taken by Central United Church in my area. I will not quote all the letter, hut I would just like to put it on the record that Deborah Savage, the associate minister for Central United Church in Unionville, says:

“We oppose this legislation and indeed the proposal to allow individual municipalities to make their own decision on this issue, and we wish to make our concerns known so that you might intervene. There are several key issues at stake. For ourselves as Christians, Sunday is our day of worship and not a day for working. Indeed, Sunday has long been regarded as a family day, a worship day and a day of rest. To, in effect, force people to work on Sunday by allowing retail stores to open, you would be flying in the face of what is considered holy and nurturing for community and family life.

“We recognize our neighbours of other faiths who do not share the same Sabbath as ours and reaffirm their right for their religious observances. At the same time, we acknowledge the fact that Sunday has traditionally been our common pause day and to alter this would be disruptive to community and family life.

“In your decision to be fair about open Sundays where people have access to public shopping you have not been consistent in having full access to the community. The understanding is that only retail stores and essential services would be open on Sundays, whereas other services, primarily government-related, would still have the freedom of Sunday leisure.

“Yet another concern we wish to express is your unwillingness as a government to alter your position on this matter even although a majority of the people of Ontario seem to be strongly united against an open-Sunday policy.”

This letter was written to the Premier. Because of the fact that she was saying this to me, I was for a moment thinking that I could be accused of such a crime:

“It is fair, Mr. Peterson, to say that you personally lose credibility when you do not face this issue directly. The province of Ontario will not be enhanced by fragmented municipalities and a mosaic of policies. Our strength comes from having a united and not a splintered front.”

She went on, and I have to read these few lines here, “We appeal to your sense of strong leadership.” I would have questioned that one, but anyway, she was appealing to it. “We appeal to your sense of strong leadership and compassion” -- well, he is not showing much compassion on this one – “for the people of Ontario. Please hear us when we speak out against the proposed open-Sunday policy. Hear our concern for the sanctity and welfare of our families. Have the courage to show a sense of confidence in your own leadership by reversing your decision in this matter and showing us that you have heard and value our opinions.

“Will you show that you care about our feelings on this issue? I look forward to hearing from you on the matter in the near future.”

That is typical of the kinds of feelings that are coming through from the correspondence that I have received from people in my community. They are not just asking for Sunday as a pause day. They are respectful of the needs of people with other religions who may want another day for their pause and they are going to lose that opportunity with this legislation, and they are saying: “Come on. Do something to recognize the Jewish people, or the Hindus or whatever other religions, so that each of these peoples are going to have a chance to have that day of repose, of rest, of recreation.”

When I see some of the statements that have come in, I am touched by the fact that you are seeing groups of people who until now have not been able to sit down at the same table together because they have never had enough in common. In fact, what you are seeing now is a cross-section of all the churches and all denominations. In fact, at this point in time I cannot think of one religious denomination in this country that has gone on record as saying it wants to have a wide-open Sunday. Maybe the Solicitor General, in making some comments with regard to my remark, can point out the names of those who are on record as saying, as churches and recognized denominations, they are in favour of having a wide-open Sunday.

The fact is that this interfaith committee of Christians, and I think it is primarily Christians here, has come forward and is saying strongly to the province of Ontario that it is asking for a reversal in the direction that this Legislature is now taking.

I would just like to quote, in part, “We have joined together and have drafted an interfaith statement on the issue of open Sunday shopping,” and then they come forward. I am not going to read that statement into the record. Because of the number of people who do want to speak on the issue, it would take far more time than I have, but they say within their statement:

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

It becomes another statement by another group of people who are saying, “We want this province to retain something of its character and something of its nature that has really made it what it is today.”

One of the things that came through in this Legislature in the free trade debate was the fact that the people of Ontario were afraid of being absorbed into the United States, afraid of being taken in by its merchandizing, its commercialism, by the American way of life.

In fact, one wonders when one starts thinking of the amount of TV that we have in this province that is beamed in from the United States and the impact it has on our own value system. But one of the ways in which we can continue to maintain the unique nature and character of this province is by keeping that day of rest. So many people say, “What we like about Canada is that there is something different about us.” I am saying that one of the things that can keep us different and keep us strong is having that day when we can take time to be with our families and our loved ones.

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

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

June 13, 1988

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

KEITH ACTON

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

FUTURES PROGRAM

PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE DAY

YORK CENTRAL HOSPITAL

RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL DAYS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY SPECULATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

VISITOR

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING BOARDS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

DRUG ENFORCEMENT

CFTO LABOUR DISPUTE

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

SEXUAL ASSAULT

CANADIAN SHIELD SPRING WATER CO. LTD.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE DETACHMENT

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

MORAVIAN TEMPLE CORPORATION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT